< 11 February	13 February >

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

The result was merge to Monster High. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monster High (film)[edit]

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

PROD deleted. Per WP:NFF, hasn't entered principal photography. Only reference is passing mention of franchise and IMDb. Last substantial mention from 2010 so no current indication even in development. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irritated ~~Keep~~ Delete - The lack of adequate sourcing when the article was created has again put us in this position. A three and a half year-old reference would normally suggest this is a vapor project, and would at best belong as a footnote in the main article. IMDb ref doesn't count for all the regular reasons. Coverage from 2013 is more recent but didn't convey much about the project. I found this reference, which is from 2014 and announces a proposed release date of October 16, 2016, however nobody had yet been cast and no director had been attached. Variety indicated an October 7, 2016 release back in May 2014. A January 2015 Variety article mentions Monster High will be pitted against Gambit in March 2016, which is also supported by this Jan 2015 source and this Jan 2015 source. Anyhow, while there isn't much news about specifics, the projects seem to have some steam. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WP:NFF says we need info that project has entered principal photography for an article to be created. "Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." At most this should be a section at Monster High until then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. I did a lot of searching to see if I could find any indication that principal photography had begun. I was not successful. Seems like it must have if they have a release date early next year, but my assumptions obviously have no bearing here, and we are in no hurry to include the information. Modifying !vote. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge per the notability guidelines for future films, which states that stand-alone articles should be created after the start of filming. Before this threshold, there is no guarantee of an actual production. Development details can be summarized at Monster High, and if filming begins, a stand-alone article can be restored. Another approach, if desired, is to create Draft:Monster High (film) and maintain it until it is ready to be placed in the mainspace. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from delete to merge, which is probably the better approach where page history is preserved and a stand-alone article can be quickly re-established if filming does begin as planned. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As per WP:NFF, no source says that the principal photography has even started yet. It should be merged with the Monster High article until it's ready to be a standalone article. Esquivalience ^t 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monster High – Films and TV specials. Per WP:NFF, "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 15 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Lafargue[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being an assistant US attorney for west Louisiana and a failed Senate candidate; does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG (the only non-trivial coverage is a local obituary). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wrong, if you had read the full article, you would see that he prosecuted Louisiana Hayride as an asst. U.S. attorney but was U.S. attorney from 1941 to 1950. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPOL says nothing about US Attorneys, and lacking WP:GNG coverage, there isn't anything in this article that meets notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are overt two hundred U.S. attorneys with Wikipedia articles; some did become judges too. An exact accounting would take a while. Mr. Lafargue's article is consistent with many of the other U.S. attorney articles.Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I challenge you to find articles in the US Attorney category where that was their only claim to fame. Furthermore, you are willfully ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an AfD argument over and over again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list: Thomas M. DiBiagio of Maryland

Rod J. Rosenstein (MD)
Joyce White Vance (AL)
Alice Martin (AL)
W. H. H. Clayton (AR)
Colm Connolly (DE)
Florence T. Nakakuni (HI)
Wendy J. Olson (ID)
Michael C. Ormsby (WA)
Johnny Sutton (TX) (also college baseball)
David N. Kelley (NY)_Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would disagree that this list is what it purports to be - Clayton was a federal judge and DiBiagio was caught in the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. However, the question we have with this subject is not that it is a quality, well sourced article but that they rely primarily on local sources on subjects that would not normally meet WP:POLITICIAN. WP:NEWSORG states "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." I think many commenters question the reliance of local sources since many local papers frequently reprint press releases without any fact-checking or the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The other question is whether the articles are about the subject or whether they cover the subject in some depth. I think the burden is on the creator of the page to ultimately show there "is something unusual about the subject, or something that may be encyclopedic" (for an international audience) WP:MILL. My sense, overall, is that Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place for these articles that have come up for AfD the past few weeks. Instead, they appear to be painting a picture of Louisiana politics in the 1930s that may be missing from our traditional understanding of the dominance of Huey Long and his machine. The problem is that each individual piece may not meet WP:GNG but the larger project has tremendous value. Enos733 (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I rechecked, and W. H. H. Clayton was not a federal judge but the U.S. attorney for Judge Isaac Parker in Fort Smith, Arkansas.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:MILL is an essay and it happens to be a load of rubbish that makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with our actual notability criteria. There is no burden of proof on the page creator. AfD has a presumption against deletion, and if there is a burden of proof, NRVE and BEFORE appear to place it on those arguing for deletion, by requiring them to conduct a thorough search for sources. (2) I doubt that generalisations about what many local papers do is relevant. I am more interested in what the particular paper in question actually does. James500 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. There is significant coverage about him in multiple reliable sources with regard to both his role as the federal prosecutor in the Minden lynching trial of 1947 and his run for Senator. See, e.g. [1],[2] and [3]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added the three other sources you found.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, albeit on the weakish side. Source examples include [4] (scroll down to the OCR Text box and read within), [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (short paragraph), [11] (very short paragraph), [12] (very short paragraph). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the additional sources; the material has been added to the article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep US Federal District Attorneys are default notable. This is a major appointment with lots of influence and power. Plus Lafargue's role in investigations as an assistant USDA would probably also make him notable. The District attorney is more notable than district judges, since there is one attorney and multiple judges. We don't have articles on most USDAs, but that lack in coverage means we need more aritcles, not that we should delete the ones we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets the GNG based on the sources. It doesn't matter that he does not have inherent notability based on the office he held. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 17 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hull United A.F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable football club - never played in an FA competition Kivo (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition. No other achievements noted that have garnered sufficient, significant, reliable and non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix down, never played at a sufficiently high enough level or received sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Hasan[edit]

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

I put this as a prod but decided to change it. I did find his name on the IMDB but I'm not even sure if it is the same guy or not. Wgolf (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we removed all unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, one of a rather vast amount of badly-sourced (or, in this case, unsourced) articles on Bangladeshi cinema by Sadman Sakibzz. Some might be on notable subjects, and Amit Hasan apparently is one of them. I expect a search for Bengali sources may prove helpful. English-language sourcing is very thin, but if him giving a TV interview is worth a newspaper article, I'd expect more detailed coverage to exist somewhere. For now I've rewritten the article in its entirety. Huon (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, famous film actor in Bangladesh. This article needs some attention. Thats all. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very popular actor and often well covered in traditional (not online) media. This article needs proper attention. – nafSadh did say 23:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Popular Bangladeshi film actor. There are available reliable sources in Bengali. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:09, 16 February 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 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar Subedi[edit]

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

A Nepalese health professional who has a significant career but seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Almost all references in the article are primary, and no indication of further coverage by reliable secondary sources. I also cannot find any significant holdings of his work in WorldCat. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Much of the work cited in this autobiography is co-authored, or even just comments on another author's paper. The rest is primary sources or self-published, including a hasty addition to his Google Sites page in one instance. Dai Pritchard (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person and there are many Raj Kumar Subedi. Delibzr (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned by the nominator. BakerStMD T|C 16:41, 15 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AVRO F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable - never played in FA competition or step 6 Kivo (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (palaver) @ 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (dialogue) @ 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition. No other achievements noted that have garnered sufficient, significant, reliable and non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix down, never played at a sufficiently high enough level or received sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 February 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 WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stambridge United F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable, has never played in an FA competition Kivo (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Apologies, I didn't see they had played in the Essex Senior League. Kivo (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Club has played in the Essex Senior League (level 9 of the football pyramid), and there is a long-standing consensus that clubs that have played at level 10 (also referred to as step 6) or above are notable (see references to this in previous AfDs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 – can provide plenty more examples given more time). Article is also well references. Number 5 7 20:45, 12 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingswood AFC[edit]

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

Non-notable fotball club - has never played in an FA competition Kivo (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) @ 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) @ 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FOOTYN has never played in a national competition. No other achievements noted that have garnered sufficient, significant, reliable and non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix down, never played at a sufficiently high enough level or received sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 16:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yosh Kuromiya[edit]

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

I don't see notability, in spite of the inclusion of his story in a PBS television show. He was included not because he was notable, but because he was typical. I do not believe this passes WP:GNG, because, though there is coverage, there is not significant coverage. ubiquity (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a brief search reveals a significant breadth of sources over the course of the last two decades. ~Excesses~ (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell) @ 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the PBS profile, multiple pages devoted to his history as a draft resister in this book [13]. Satisfies WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 23:33, 12 February 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 Cheyenne (disambiguation). Stifle (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne, Colorado[edit]

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

CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) seems to have an obsession for deleting redirects, etc. in this area. I am creating this AfD on her behalf. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems a useful disambiguation page on a likely search term. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cheyenne (disambiguation) - I think somebody searching for the "Cheyenne" that's not the race or the place in Wyoming will want all the information consolidated in one place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Two Colorado disambiguation pages. There is no place called "Cheyenne, Colorado". There's no article page that links to Cheyenne, Colorado.
- The items on the page were moved with the new List of places named Cheyenne, a ((set index article)) as also discussed at the disambiguation project page.
- Also based upon the discussions there, the Cheyenne (disambiguation) page was edited to just include true disambiguation items, and namesakes were moved to Places named after the Cheyenne.
- There's a See also section on the Cheyenne {disambiguation} page that links to List of places named Cheyenne.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see set index articles, which is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. disambiguation. Disambiguation is for multiple uses of the same term, not all the iterations of articles that include the term.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just noticed this comment: "CaroleHenson seems to have an obsession for deleting redirects"- that's a misguided and inaccurate statement. I have been working on clean-up of a number of articles where inaccurate names were used and/or incorrect use of disambiguation pages, which is what "Cheyenne, Colorado" was. There is no "Cheyenne, Colorado" and there are several disambiguation pages and a list page for Places named Cheyenne (nw cleaned up/created as a work-around for inappropriate use of a disambig page). In this work, I think I've worked on deletion of 3 pages related to disamb-turned-to-redirect scenarios and had agreement from the Disambiguation project and administrators. I thought the direction that I received to use ((db-dab)) for disambig pages that had nothing on them once the inappropriate info was removed was the right way to go...since nothing links there.
  - This is just the tippy-top and miniscule issue in the whole scheme of the needed rewrites, and frustrated about how an editor can take things side-ways, remove good cited content from reliable sources, replace it with inaccurate or misguided interprettation of the information, and then it's becomes a complicated issue to resolve what I consider a really minor aspect (wrongly named pages), apparently through multiple forums.
  - I'm very confused. There's no "Cheyenne, Colorado" - and as mentioned earlier, a disambig and list page to sort it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are three possible entries for a dab page - Cheyenne County, Colorado, Cheyenne Mountain and Cheyenne Creek. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheyenne (disambiguation) or Delete, with a slight preference for the former. There isn't any place in Colorado that is known simply as "Cheyenne." The three entries that User:Clarityfiend mentions are WP:PTMs, because no one would refer to the county, mountain, or creek as simply "Cheyenne," the suffix is always attached. I have a preference to redirect (even though it is technically incorrect), due to the fact that it is plausible that someone would search for "Cheyenne, Colorado." Tavix | Talk 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Not so. People routinely say "I climbed Everest" or "They crossed the Mississippi". The county's a bit borderline, but within the realm of possibility. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But would anyone ever say "I climbed "Cheyenne, Colorado" or "I crossed the Cheyenne, Colorado"? older ≠ wiser 02:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So one alternative is to redirect to a dab page which, according to Tavix, has no matches? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the potential entries are ever likely to be referred to as "Cheyenne, Colorado". If not deleted, it should redirect to the Cheyenne (disambiguation) as incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 02:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful disambig solely confined to Colorado geographical subjects (whereas the main Cheyenne disambig will necessarily include native-American subjects, etc). Pax 08:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheyenne (disambiguation). Dab pages which duplicate subsets of others are usually a bad idea, as any new item will be added randomly to one or the other but probably not to both. PamD 09:55, 11 February 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheyenne (disambiguation). MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:34, 18 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K League Junior[edit]

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

Junior sports league, no evidence of notability Dweller (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no third-party coverage; junior leagues of any sport are rarely notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Junior sports leagues are generally considered non-notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 13 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Korean National Youth Football League – Under-15[edit]

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

Non notable junior sports tournament Dweller (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Junior sports leagues are generally considered non-notable, season articles on those leagues especially so. No indication that this season received anywhere near the level of significant non-routine, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 16 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Korean National Youth Football League – Under-12[edit]

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

Even if we established whether this was Under 12 (per title) or Under 15 (per text) it's just not notable. Dweller (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Junior sports leagues are generally considered non-notable, season articles on those leagues especially so. No indication that this season received anywhere near the level of significant non-routine, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been deleted ten times for spamming, lack of notability or both. Its history shows an array of dubious practices including removal of CSD tags and editing from multiple accounts each with a handful of edits. An editor with no edits other than to my talk page has challenged my speedy, and it's two years since the last AFD so I'm bringing it here for the spam/notability to be debated. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On verifiability, I personally believe that Monstercat is suitable for Wikipedia — although it may not have as recently as a year ago. Huffington Post and Billboard have written articles specifically about Monstercat, and The Verge has written one that discusses the label in more than passing (albeit the main subject is Twitch). On "spamming"... I haven't been watching this page's history, but Monstercat does have an unusually wide (and young) fanbase for a record label, and it wouldn't surprise me if a few of their fans were just a bit too eager to get the label onto Wikipedia. In my opinion, that doesn't warrant deleting the page — at worst, it could perhaps benefit from semi-protection until notability has been unambiguously established. I would be very surprised if the label itself were responsible for any substantial activity on the page. Fraxtil (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-*Keep - Basically agreeing with @Fraxtil:. I think semi-protection would be better worth it. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)-[reply]

...and I just created the talk page for the article, again. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also just added a lot of sources to back up about half of the albums. I'm planning on adding more later tonight, so I've changed to a Strong Keep. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and protect as needed from spammers, per arguments are above. I'm very glad this article wasn't speedy deleted, naughty IPs or not. It doesn't even look too bad as is, just needs some basic cleanup. Earflaps (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has absolutely NO reason to be deleted. I don't see how it's breaking any of Wikipedia's guidelines. It might need some cleanup, but that's pretty much it. --Prism2001 (talk) 07:20, 18 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete The article does not contain enough neutral reliable sources, most of the sources given are from sites containing biased or unverifiable information. The Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war page should be expanded with the reliable information from this article. UMDP (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep There is no need for delete due to unreliable sources. There are hundreds of articles with unreliable sources. Discuss at articles page and improve the article rather than delete. --Anton^Talk 08:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As AntanO stated there is no need to delete the article because there are no enough reliable sources when there is a state intimidation on media for decades and most of the Colombo based newspapers are biased towards Sri Lankan State Governments and not necessarily reflect neutrally the views of the Tamil minority community and its struggles.Kaytsfan (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can find better sources than Tamilnet. There are neutral sites like Groundviews.org that talks about these things. UMDP (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator has admitted there are plenty of "neutral" sources which mention this subject therefore this nomination fails WP:DEL-REASON. The article should be improved to overcome the WP:POV issues, not repeatedly nominated for deletion in order to WP:CENSOR.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:34, 15 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide wave of action[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated for deletion last year with little input, closed as no consensus. The keep rationale was "keep for now," and we now know that this never actually happened. More to the point, there aren't any sources about it to build an article on (which we'd expect from something that never occurred). Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I gave when I initiated the previous deletion discussion. It was weird that the two other contributions to that discussion leaned toward merging or redirecting, without indicating what the article would be merged with or redirected to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BALL should have applied at the time, and if "Wikipedia is not a repository of events that might have been" was not so self-evidently obvious that someone had actually written it up, I'd quote it here. ~Excesses~ (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least based on current content, the article provides no evidence that this event actually took place. All the sources appear to have been added to the article before the scheduled start of the event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination statement and subsequent comments. No credible sources to verify the event actually took place.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should probably have been CRYSTALLED at the time, but as it did not happen, it did not receive coverage or have an impact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Detele/redirect as creator. It didn't pan out and some of the media reports appear to have been manipulated. Juno (talk) 23:35, 13 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Brown (entertainer)[edit]

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

Tentative delete: I tried to check but apart from the single source, I could not manage any other credible sources. Might fail WP:BLP. Please review. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep es:Frank Brown shows rather more to support this.

Also, why is BLP particularly relevant? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources to establish notability. Since he has been dead for over a 50 years BLP rules do not apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr pradeep jain[edit]

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

Delete: Does not meet WP:BLP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per proposal (no claim of notability).Tigraan (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A press release and a couple of passing mentions do not notability make. The subject appears not short of a self-assessment opinion [14] but I am not seeing evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in here meets WP:PROF notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Article is written like a CV with no content to work with to turn it into something useful. ~Excesses~ (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above. BakerStMD T|C 16:39, 15 February 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. - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Liquid[edit]

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

I can't find any other valid supportive sources other than AllMusic, and one is hardly enough. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added in a reference from The Wire magazine (whose subscriber archives are probably unavailable to the nominator); between that and the Allmusic review I think there is enough for WP:NALBUMS criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per addition of new reference. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:06, 13 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atiq Sufi[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence for notability, does not meet the usual standards at MILHIS DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The sources are OK, but the subject doesn't meet the criteria at WP:SOLDIER. One snippet in Books that says he was also a member of an acrobatic team. So he was an elite pilot in the Pakistani Air Force with one victory? Willing to change my !vote if someone with more experience in military history weighs in, but as of now it doesn't look like it qualifies. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the sources are OK, the article should be kept, for WP:GNG trumps WP:SNG.--Antigng (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – By OK, I meant that they were reliable enough. Three one-line mentions of the event, plus one rather more detailed description of the event, published in a magazine called Defense Journal (here registration required) and reprinted on a blog. The blog entry quotes recollections by Sufi but doesn't give a source. So it looks like WP:ONEEVENT, the event being one of the few victories in a losing battle. I'm unsure about this, but it doesn't look to me like the event is that significant. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mid-ranking officer with one victory. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a fighter pilot who shot down a plane does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Subject recently died, so it would make sense to check for better sources (obituaries) in Pakistani newspapers, which you know are not usually in English. Hopefully someone with the required knowledge can do so. As noted above, notability is unproven at this time. Pinging @Samee: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not notable. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 10:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject receives passing mention in multiple reliable sources, but none that would be considered in-depth, or significant coverage by those reliable sources. Therefore failing, WP:GNG, I support deletion of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:50, 19 February 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 speedily deleted by User:Deb per CSD G11 and salted. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Diary of Essmoirtry[edit]

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

Unremarkable novel. The author doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Also could come under WP:NEOLOGISM. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speedying this again. It's blatant advertising created by the author. Deb (talk) 12:52, 12 February 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. WP:CSD#A7. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Shelby[edit]

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

I just put a BLP prod up but looking over this-possible hoax article? (the dates are odd-okay I'm sure 2915 is a misprint but with the April 1st part and then it saying June) also just 2 views is not something to brag about. Wgolf (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I kind of doubt it has just 2 views also...Wgolf (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find absolutely no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 February 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 Apartment. Thanks to Northamerica1000 for the preemptive merge. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One room[edit]

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

Prod was removed by author. Reads like a definition. Wikipedia is not WP:Dictionary Lakun.patra (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary which would include "not a dictionary of South Korean neologisms." Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Apartment. I have performed this simple merge, rewriting content per the source, which is now located at Apartment#Studio apartment. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apartment as per WP:NOT#DICT--Antigng (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per WP:NOTDICT. APerson (talk!) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - almost speedyable for having barely any content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - Fails NDICT. –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Studio apartment#Global variations which already has a little about this. Andrew D. (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NDICT, least of all a dictionary of Japanese and Korean. In English "one room" is a noun phrase with the obvious meaning; in Japanese and (evidently) Korean, (subject to the appropriate phonetic modification) it is a noun meaning a particular sort of rented accomodation. There could be an entry in Wiktionary for "one room" in J/K; there might also be an article in WP on "Terminology for rented accomodation in East Asia" (or something more general). Of course English speakers living in J/K may well say "I live in a one room", despite the grammatical infelicity, but given that "one room flat" already refers to the same general concept, I do not see that there is any encyclopedic topic here. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:18, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley[edit]

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

The available sources are exclusively local, as the subject is of exclusively local interest and significance. Currently WP:AUD does not allow articles that have no national-level sources, though I see from the Talk page that aspect of the guideline is under discussion and some are voting to delete that part of the guideline. I think the article should be discussed for deletion, though I am not sure which way I am voting specifically. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources about shopping center to prove its notability. Just because they are local sources and not national sources does not mean much as most shopping centers and malls do not get covered in national sources unless they are well-known like the Mall of America or a major event happens at it that captures national attention. Using WP:AUD as a guideline for deletion is not the best argument as a lot of things are notable locally or regionally and should not be deleted simply on the fact they haven't been covered in national sources. Dough 48 72 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUD. No coverage beyond local; articles such as this might demonstrate notability for local shoppers but not for anyone beyond a thirty mile radius of this very nice part of Pennsylvania. I'm a big fan of a lot of local shops and businesses, and all of them get coverage in the local paper. Every time the owners burp they gets their names in the paper. Every lawsuit is chronicled. Every zoning variance covered in detail. Shall we have an article on them? Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over 95% of shopping malls do not get much press coverage outside of a 30 mile radius. If you are saying this article should be deleted then we should delete most shopping mall articles. Most people in California have little interest in news concerning this mall whereas most people in Pennsylvania have little interest in news concerning malls in California. What would probably be a better measurement of notability of shopping centers is how much it is covered in local media, as that is generally where most of the stories of most malls come from. If a mall receives frequent coverage in local media (like this mall and most of the dominant malls within a given metropolitan area), then it is notable enough for its own article. If the mall of shopping center does not get much coverage in local media other than advertisements or the occasional news story (like the average strip mall), then it should probably be deleted and not have its own article. Dough 48 72 01:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's fair to say that the average, unremarkable strip mall would not be notable. Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I think that editors may want to peruse previous shopping mall article deletion discussions, of which there are quite a few. I don't think that an AfD is an optimal place to discuss which shopping mall articles are and are not worth deleting, and to be frank I think that a bit of research on the issue was warranted before this AfD, which is why I tagged it rather than starting an AfD. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with our standards for shopping mall articles, which is why I felt the discussion would be enhanced through an AfD, but looking at Category:Shopping malls in Pennsylvania, it does seem like the community has been accepting of articles about routine shopping malls. Many editors contribute to Wikipedia almost exclusively regarding items of local interest and I believe we also have a lot of articles about local lakes or other geographic landmarks that are not of any particular significance. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "other stuff exists" is necessarily a persuasive argument. Richland Town Centre is sourced to a press release and a blogspot blog. There's a lot of crap in Wikipedia to be sure. I wouldn't put articles about lakes or geographical features in the same category as glorified press releases. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 5 February 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) 06:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough local noteable sources exist that it appears the article could be filled out. Esw01407 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bizzigotti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Merely being a member of notable musical groups does not confer notability on the subject. He must have demonstrated notability apart from any group. This subject does not appear to have any independent notability. Article is an autobiography. Only source appears to be the subject's own website. Safiel (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The References and citations will be added as I learn more about creating a Wikipedia artical. The Information contained in the article has been entered by me Dave Bizzigotti. If you need more validation i will be more than happy to accommodate. Until I learn more I have pointed to places on the internet that contains all Information......Please do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBizzigotti (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — DBizzigotti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Dave Bizzigotti is as of now a hired gun for the metal and hard rock industry with notable endorsements gained as a hired bassist for live concerts and studio work. Dave Bizzigotti was not merely a bassist for just one notable musical group but three as mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBizzigotti (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — DBizzigotti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I can't find anything other than trivial mentions of this person on a few fan sites and self published sources. Fails WP:BASIC.- Mr X 02:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 5 February 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) 06:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He wasn't notable in 2010 and certainly isn't notable now, Found no evidence of notability so thus fails NMUSIC and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 06:15, 12 February 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 deleted per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-bureau-for-the-advancement-of-music-emc/". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Bureau for the Advancement of Music[edit]

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

A search indicates that the organisation doesn't have the depth of coverage required to meet WP:ORG. The organization has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organisation. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - there are a fair amount of hits in google books, most appear to be minor, but there may be enough to establish notability. Deunanknute (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - most of the sources added the article are only passing mentions of the subject Flat Out let's discuss it 05:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the organization is almost 100 years old. there are hundreds of hardcopy files are on record (actually on microfiche) in the local library archives, however there is enough information online about the organization to establish notability. I will focus on including more independent sources and write original content for the article. Rajeevanm (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can use hardcopy sources as long as they can be verified. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - just noticed the copyvio, can't keep it as is. Could be remade, with notability sourced. Deunanknute (talk) 06:13, 12 February 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 00:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universel Murad Hassil[edit]

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

Non notable temple. It has been tagged for notability since 2011. Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is also non notable and has been tagged for notability since 2011:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 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) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 12 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The All Seeing Hand[edit]

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

WP:MUSIC notability issues smileguy91^talk 00:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete not even an attempt to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to say "keep" because this is an awesome band, but Ridernyc is right - there has been no attempt to establish notability. Haminoon (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Non-notable, self-promotion. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:57, 14 February 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. If anyone feels they are willing to merge the little available content, they can let me know and I'll undelete it under a redirect. And if anyone thinks they can recreate the article in a less spammy manner, they are as always welcome to try. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pimsleur method[edit]

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

Advertising and badly sourced article. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality of the current version of the article is not a reason to delete it if the topic itself is worth inclusion. There seems to be enough content here that merging into spaced repetition and second-language acquisition would not be a good idea. It also seems to be a bad idea to merge it with the company Pimsleur Language Programs. Pimsleur published quite a bit about his method (long before it was commercialized) and is also cited in the language learning literature. That there is a commercial version of his method is no reason to exclude it from WP. --Macrakis (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undue emphasis and duplicative. the net effect is promotional. The excess detail could be removed, but there would be left nothing not covered in the other articles. (and I'm going to check Pimsleur Language Programs to see if it should be merged into the author article. . DGG ( talk ) 10:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Pimsleur Language Programs, and check for WP:NPOV. Deunanknute (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge selectively to Pimsleur Language Programs. As far as I can tell the article gets its promotional quality thanks to the fact that the only non-primary citation it uses doesn't even mention the Pimsleur method. There is the Psychology Today article listed in further reading which looks ok, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 12 February 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 Primary Colours (album). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror's Image[edit]

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

Does not appear to have enough valid sources to warrant Wikipedia-notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary Colours (album). The bit of coverage I've found concerns the video (the lengthiest of which is here); I'm not convinced that a standalone article is warranted. Gongshow talk 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 12 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George de Menil[edit]

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

I think it's time to give some scrutiny to this couple. For one, both articles are by a single-purpose account, and the de Menils are wealthy, which together strongly suggest some form of COI editing. And then there's the problem of sourcing. Various grand claims are made on behalf of both, but the articles are basically unsourced. For George, the citations are simply to his books (no page numbers, either). For Lois, basically the same thing. In short, we don't have independent evidence that either of these figures is notable, as defined by WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles for the parents, Dominique de Menil and John de Menil (who do seem to be notable), are written in a similarly long, bloated, grandiose way, and have also been extensively edited by apparent SPAs. There's a 1986 New York Times profile of the family here. Leaning toward keep but put all of these articles on a diet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mouzenidis Group[edit]

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

Article about a Greek tourism company. Pure advertising, created by the company itself. No evidence of notability. andy (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see much notable company. Ellinair is the same, there subsidiary. JT_dale^Talk~ 00:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article authored by multiple WP:SPA accounts including the blocked User:Mouzenidis travel. Searches are turning up no evidence that the company is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 20:11, 12 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Soo-kyung (actress born 1996)[edit]

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

Way too soon-actress who JUST started her career. Wgolf (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-The best would be a redirect to the tv show. Wgolf (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NACTOR asks for multiple significant roles. This being her first role makes a very much WP:TOOSOON. Also the drama just aired its first episode this Monday (Feb 9), hence seriously doubting how much can be discussed even for this role as of now. No prejudice of recreation when (1) reviews of this show come out and/or (2) she got more prominent roles. FYI kowp and zhwp (the only two wp's with the show's article) both red-linked Lee. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear example of too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperCity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This Article was approved for deletion on two occasions. At a later date a redirect was established to SkyscapersPage.com. These two websites are not affiliated. This resulted in vandalism to SkyscapersPage.com.

SkyscraperPage.com is a Canadian site owned by: SKYSCRAPER SOURCE MEDIA INC. SkyscraperCity.com is European site owned by: STICHTING WOLKENKRABBERS (Jan Klerks) Here are the websites owned by SKYSCRAPER SOURCE MEDIA INC.: http://skyscrapersource.com/websites.htm Here are the websites owned by Jan Klerks: http://www.janklerks.nl/ 192.136.235.164 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. 02:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete and Salt: Above was left on the article's Talk page by stated IP contributor. ScraperCity was del then recreated multiple times, redirected to other but they're unrelated outside of topic area. No sources and fails to meet WP:GNG - stinks of WP:ADMASQ, WP:PROMO. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 12 February 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Wilbur[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. References are mostly self-published, and I couldn't find others of more notability. Might merit an article based on his acting career, but I'm not familar enough with the shows he appeared in to say whether he had any significant roles, and the section would require better references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenedictineMalediction (talk • contribs) 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but minor roles; no significant third party WP:RS coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article admits the subjects roles have been minor ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Kufour[edit]

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

While being the first lady of a country is impressive and could count as notability, this looks almost like a not inherited issue. Could be redirected to John Kufuor (or userfied.) (Well all the first ladies of the US have pages-but not sure about other countries) Wgolf (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-I forgot I tagged this article for a XFD until I was just looking over the eligible deletion page, anyway, she has some refs now and it looks a lot better now and she has other notable things also. So yes withdrawing! Wgolf (talk) 00:35, 18 February 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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else recommends that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Kavanagh[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL SageGreenRider (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This may meet WP:Politician as she was a council member, but it is in desperate need of rewriting and sourcing. − Gaming4JC (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Gaming4JC (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm having second thoughts about this nomination now because I just noticed that there was an almost invisible bare url cite (a dead link) right at the bottom. I found an archive of the dead link at Wayback When Machine, and it looks somewhat notable. The quote from the cite is rather long so it might need trimming to avoid copyright violation, but that is easily fixed. SageGreenRider (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse I'm going to reverse myself. Fist time I read it I eye skipped over the tiny [1] bare url source, and nominated it thinking there was likely no support for notability. It turns out she had a building named after her, so I now think she's notable after all. Sorry for the churn. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 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) 08:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Burton (journalist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, normally I'd recommend a redirect to Secrets and Lies (book) as being the only clearly notable thing he's involved with, but the current article title is hardly a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for a journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 13 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Lormand[edit]

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

Promotional piece for a non notable actor - at best a case of WP:TOOSOON, at worst an A7 case for CSD. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Not seeing any substantive role in any television show or film just bit parts. Article has virtually no references except an Imdb link and a link to a likely self-published blog. Written in promotional tone. Cowlibob (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nageshwar Rao[edit]

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

Article is about the managing director of a property development company, referenced by company PR that makes passing mention of him. Nothing particularly notable about the man per WP:BIO apart from his association with the company, and I can't find any independent, WP:SECONDARY coverage online. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 4 February 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) 04:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:27, 17 February 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 WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cobram Courier[edit]

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

~~non-notable small circulation newspaper per WP:NNEWSPAPER~~ Deunanknute (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw Deunanknute (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This newspaper is part of the Australian Newspapers Digitisation Program and is linked to on the List of Australian newspapers page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkgbro (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was created during a training workshop: Wikipedia:GLAM/Australian libraries and WP/Events/2015 ALIA Workshops, and is a continuation of Wikipedia:GLAM/State Library of New South Wales/The Newspaper Project. --99of9 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Obviously notable topic, nicely done article. --do ncr am 15:26, 12 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motoroids[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This website is a bit of an oddity. A Google news search for its name brings up many many hits on its own website, all related to the Indian automotive industry, and a web search brings up a smattering of maybe reliable news hits that mention the site. As I don't have enough knowledge of the motor industry or India, I think AfD is the best place to discuss what we do with it. An article with this title has been at AfD before, but I can't easily tell if it was the same thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject may meet WEBCRIT #1 (the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..). Here are some sources that substantiate the claim, -[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] (There are 97,800 hits in Indian reliable sources). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with most, if not all of those sources is the "non-trivial" bit. All of them are about the Indian motor industry, and have a brief mention to someone in Motoroids giving a passing mention on the subject in hand. What I could really do with is something that actually talks specifically about Motoroids itself. One of the problems I have with AfD is despite the mantra of "It's not cleanup", its an excellent opportunity to clean up the article, but without some good solid sources that have Motoroids as their main topic, not just as a soundbite, I'd struggle to be able to write anything. @Titodutta: - can you help? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, you are looking for sources that are fully centric on subject and seeking to establish GNG. But there is another criteria, particularly for websites, a website may be considered worthy of inclusion per WEBCRIT#1, -if its content has been published by multiple independent, reliable sources. IB Times and Silicon India are reputable reliable sources -who has published contents of Motoroids website, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [more]. There are some hits on HighBeam too -[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [more].

I am not sure what can we do with these sources, but subject appears to be satisfying our inclusion criteria. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig through IB Times and see what I can do, but to me it's a phyrric victory if this AfD closes as "Keep" but the article still cites little more than itself, Facebook or Alexa, wouldn't you say? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.. I am unsure but you don't seem to be agreeing with NWEB guideline. It is a reasonable query that why would a newspaper, magazine or web portal write about one among them. What is one supposed to receive is 'mention', -about their contents in other reliable media independent of them and that's my core point (like this).

If there are presently some sort of unreliable sources used in the existing article, we can fix that in a single edit either by removing them or replacing with a better one. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm exhausted. I've been through about 5-6 pages each of web, news and book searches just to find a source that is specifically about Motoroids, briefly discusses its history, its popularity, and any famous controversies - but I can't find anything beyond articles about other things that say "Motoroid's 'x' says 'y'". The best source I've found is this one and that has one paragraph that says little more than "motoroids is a motoring website and forum". That's it. To me, that fails WP:WEBCRIT, specifically "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content". I'm not trying to be a grumpy old deletionist here; seriously, if you can point me in the direction of a couple of sources that have Motoroids as their main topic, I will happily improve the article myself and withdraw this AfD. But until I find them, that can't happen. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment, I'm not willing to go farther. If "Motoroids" is published as main topic, it would meet GNG. If their contents have been published as main topic, it would meet WEBCRIT#1 [a policy specially for websites]. I am arguing for latter one (one example.).

Here you are asking to delete it because it doesn't meet GNG, I'm to keep it because it does meet NWEB. If we had to determine notability of websites by GNG, we would not have NWEB at first place. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 12 February 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 WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casterton News[edit]

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

~~non-notable small circulation newspaper per WP:NNEWSPAPER~~ Deunanknute (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw Deunanknute (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was created during a training workshop: Wikipedia:GLAM/Australian libraries and WP/Events/2015 ALIA Workshops, and is a continuation of Wikipedia:GLAM/State Library of New South Wales/The Newspaper Project. --99of9 (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NNEWSPAPER is an essay, and not a guideline. A newspaper in publication since 1869 seems likely to be notable, even if only local. If we're going to use essays, one could reference WP:NME under criteria 3, as it would be considered a reliable, authoritative source for topics related to Casterton, Victoria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Obviously notable topic, nicely done article. --do ncr am 15:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 99of9. bd2412 T 16:29, 12 February 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cid Moreira[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP. No sources cited Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources have been added. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources cover him significantly. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an very well know journalist in Brazil, he was extensevely covered by reliable sources.Lechatjaune (talk) 01:19, 17 February 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of county routes in Franklin County, Ohio[edit]

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

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

Declined PROD. Rationale was "incomplete, questionable notability" and endorsed with "Fails WP:GNG as systems of county roads, or the individual roads, are rarely the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and no sources are provided here to refute that conclusion" –Fredddie ™ 03:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another one that was PRODded and declined at the same time. –Fredddie ™ 03:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—in addition to the notability issues as mentioned in the PRODs, there is also no photographic evidence that the counties involved actually posts signage to indicate the numbers to motorists. Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the PROD. Can't quite say I'm sure why the PROD was contested. T C N7JM 04:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clearly not notable. Fieari (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, The PROD was bang on - It is incomplete and it does fail GNG.... –Davey2010^Talk 06:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per the comments above. Also obvious original research issues. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I live in Franklin County, and none of these roads are signed. Also very incomplete.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator was blocked for socking, which should be a red flag, besides the notability issues. --Rs chen 7754 02:15, 19 February 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. Clearly no consensus to delete; further discussion about a possible merge can be pursued in the appropriate place. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Companies of the United States with untaxed profits[edit]

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

Simply said this article by nature is original research. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article itself provides references to secondary sources that not only establish this sort of list as a notable topic, but also provides each of the entries on the list. This is not original research, it appears to be combining multiple secondary sources of a notable topic in one place-- or, in less verbose terms, it's an encyclopedia article. Fieari (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~tentatively~~. I filled out the references already in the article -- they are Reuters and Guardian news articles reporting on widely known information -- and they seem reliable. The topic seems "important" and covered as a topic. Wikipedia is good for developing/maintaining lists like this; this is just a start. --do ncr am 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I further added more studies on the overall topic: Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal. It's a recurring topic, valid for an article, meets wp:LISTN. The facts for individual firms, not yet very well developed as list-items yet, can be provided from public financial statements, which are audited, reliable records of what they report. I strike the tentativeness in my vote; it is a clear "Keep" i believe. --do ncr am 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Selective) Merge and redirect to Tax_avoidance#United_States. This seems to be an article concentrating on one overly particular type of corporate tax avoidance, which is certainly not unique to the USA. A general article on corporate tax avoidance may be useful, but something as overly specific as this seems unnecessary. At best, the name of this article is wrong, because the companies using this form of tax avoidance will constantly change, therefore be difficult to keep track of. Sionk (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Selective) Merge and redirect to Tax_avoidance#United_States. Part of a campaign by the creator of the article to use Wikipedia for advocacy. There is an accompanying category also up for deletion, here. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of the article simply supports a WP:SOAPBOX position that there is something insidious about companies engaging in fully legal tax minimization strategies. Congress can change the law at any time, and has not done so. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful expansion of Tax_avoidance#United_States. No objection to turning this later on into a multi-country article and then renaming the article accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: update I and perhaps others have edited the article to include more sources, after some of the votes above, including describing a number of studies specifically on this topic. It's a notable topic. I agree, definitely, that the article should be kept impartial, should state both sides of any arguments about what should be done with the untaxed profits, but the article did not and does not include any controversial assertions at all. It's useful to state there is debate, e.g. included now "As the Wall Street Journal notes, the "[u]ntaxed foreign earnings are part of a contentious debate over U.S. fiscal policy and tax code." Also it is very doable to list the 60 or 70 companies having the greatest amounts, in a big table yet to be developed. Dot-point list is fine to start. This topic has been in the news for years and will stay in the news. Wikipedia is good at providing factual info on important topics like this article can. --do ncr am 19:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there look to be sufficient sources for this but it needs a very carefully articulated inclusion criteria and standards for sourcing. Otherwise there are serious concerns for it's maintainability and the extent to which it could attract POV and OR. No prejudice against renomination down the road if it proves untenable in that regard, but for now it looks doable. It should also be renamed to reflect being a list (being a list is what justifies keeping it rather than merge to tax avoidance). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:45, 16 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PVS-Studio[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable (but widely spammed) software. All references seem to be non-reliable sources and/or articles by/interviews with the developers. Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychonaut: The article provides multiple reference sources, and they are certainty not only by the developers themselves, such as an article in Dr. Dobb's Journal, interview with John Carmack on Gamasutra etc. The topic is certainly not less notable then in most of the articles for C++ tools on List of tools for static code analysis. Is this Red Lizard Software article more notable then the discussed one? Certainly not! If article on PVS-Studio has to be deleted, then more that a half of tools from this should be deleted as well.--PaulEremeeff (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC) — PaulEremeeff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Dr. Dobb's article was written by Andrey Karpov, a PVS-Studio developer. The Carmack references are to Twitter posts or to interviews where he mentions PVS-Studio only in passing. None of these count as reliable sources establishing the notability of the tool. If you feel you've found other articles on tools which also fail to meet our inclusion criteria, that's not an argument for keeping this one; please nominate those articles for deletion as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is that Dr. Dobb's or Gamasutra are not reliable, as both a well-established and published sources made by professionals. An interview with the developer was certainly reviewed by a professional editor before publication. Targeting this particular tool for the deletion, ignoring dozens of similar precedents, as well as groundless accusations of tools's developers in spamming, looks as a bias of a particular user against the topic in question.PaulEremeeff (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, please read our policy and guideline on reliable sources and notability. Regarding the spamming, I never accused the developers of this (though now that you mention it, I do wonder how anyone else would have any motivation for doing so). The PVS-Studio website is, in fact, currently blacklisted from the English Wikipedia for spamming, and requests to have it removed from the blacklist have been rejected. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A have read this and I've found the source to be reliable. It is up to the moderator now to determine the correct side of this question. As I understand, requests for removing PVS-Studio website from the blacklist were rejected based on the lack of an established user supporting this notion, and not because of the malware activity on part of the aforementioned site. The motivation for spamming a particular website can be found in a bias of third-party malevolent person. It is similar to proposing the deletion of one particular article, while ignoring other precedents.PaulEremeeff (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you happen to be the same Paul Eremeev who is employed by PVS? If so, please make sure you read, understand, and comply with our policy on paid contributions and with our conflict of interest guideline. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed the same person, as I do not hide my identity, as some other users. Does being employed by a certain company prohibits me from contributing? Because all I can see now is the misrepresentation of the sources I've provided as an advertisement and a bias toward one particular article, even if the presented sources themselves are independent and the interested party has no ability to influence them. And I am certainly not paid for my contributions, as my employer derives no profit from being present on Wikipedia, our online resources even being unfairly blacklisted as you've mentioned earlier.PaulEremeeff (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Twitter, blog, etc. - this article misses reliable sources. We are not a repository of companies, software, or anything else; notability has to be satisfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, everything I can find looks like an advertisement Deunanknute (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The software is notable and e.g. used by Wine project (https://www.winehq.org/announce/1.7.35). For open source software it's difficult to find reliable sources, because there are no.--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kopiersperre: WP:NSOFT is actually quite lenient when it comes to open source software. This isn't an open source product, though, it's proprietary/closed/non-free/whatchamacallit. Notability is not inherited and the only thing the Wine folks left are version control statuses, not significant coverage of the tool. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a "Category:Proprietary_software", and the article is well written and reasonably cited. Elendal (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very much in favor to keep the article. But I agree the part about "diagnostic capabilities" sounds a bit like commercial, so I vote for removing that part. But, otherwise, I think the article is worth keeping, especially for people looking for such kind of tools and who start with Wikipedia search. Axeoth (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The software is notable, i.e. is mentioned in multiple research sources (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22PVS-Studio%22), for example 'Symbolic Analysis of Concurrency Errors in OpenMP Programs'(http://www.cs.uwyo.edu/~lwang7/papers/ICPP2013.pdf), published by IEEE Xplore, used by notable software delevopers (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134829/carmack_on_rage.php) and open source projects (https://www.winehq.org/search/?q=pvs-studio). --PaulEremeeff (talk) 10:13, 30 January 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, Daniel (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you want a reliable source and point of view: http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/ under the 'Other static analysis tools'. I am not involved in PVS-Studio, but I am a programmer and I find the average information about static tools poor and badly written. In the PVS-Studio page I always find competent writers about serious programming. Thanks for your consideration, --Hedoluna (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Hedoluna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The entirety of the text on that page about PVS-Studio is as follows: "One other tool you can use is PVS-Studio. There is a comparison of Cppcheck and PVS-Studio and we believe it's a good and honest comparison. PVS-Studio is commercial, however there is a free trial." The comparison linked to is authored by the PVS-Studio developers themselves. I don't see how either of these documents count as reliable references for the purposes of establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability in a small field as C++ static code analysis could be quite hard to prove, for every tool out there. I think there are maybe 1 out of 1000 programmers who are into the field. May you please a link towards a good C++ static code analysis page that you think is notable? This could be really speedup the process. Thanks in advance. --Hedoluna (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see why notability would be any easier or harder to prove for this topic than for any other—that's what the general notability guideline is for. I can understand why, for purposes of comparison, you'd like to see an example of an article on an indisputably notable static analyzer for C++, but unfortunately I don't think we have any at the moment. (We do have Clang, though that's a complete compiler front-end rather than a dedicated static analysis tool, and in any case its sourcing is also very poor.) —Psychonaut (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. As above, the article has a number of references, but they do not meet the threshold of significant independent coverage for a range of reasons. The Dr. Dobb's article was written by a PVS-Studio developer. and is not independent. sourceforge.net/ is edited by community members and has no editorial oversight or policy, thus not RS. The other coverage is all incidental mentions or blogs/non-WP:RS sites.Dialectric (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if Dr. Dobb's article was written by a developer, the fact that it was published means that this article was reviewed by an independent editor (of Dr. Dobb's), so I do not see, how the identity of the author affects the notability. Several of the research papers that I've linked above certainly contain more than a passing mention of the analyzer, though it should be noted, that some of them are written in Russian and Ukrainian. Again, I belive, that the IEEE Xplore does have an editorial review and is not a community managed source (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6687387&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6687387, the pdf itself is available here: http://www.cs.uwyo.edu/~lwang7/papers/ICPP2013.pdf ).--PaulEremeeff (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tools for static code analysis (that article's contents should be tabled, btw, and much of its blue-link contents could probably be bundled into this AfD): Article reads like WP:ADMASQ. This is an obscure tool whose strengths and limitations are best dealt with in a comparison article. Pax 00:47, 11 February 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:04, 12 February 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 04:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna In Love[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (collogue) @ 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (remark) @ 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There have been a few improvements since the nomination was issued. Best to check some of the new citations - it might be enough to pass WP:NBAND. --Drm310 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Most of the "references" on the page link to announcements that the band is performing a concert, selling tickets, or other trivial mentions. The best reference that I found is http://www.exitfest.org/en/stages/subastage/vienna-love this one, which might be enough. This article also has some concerns with WP:COI brought up at User talk:VIL12345678. Conservative approach would be to delete this page, wait for the band to establish more clearly defined notability, then have a page written by neutral party. However, its a close call and probably reasonable to keep. Gaff (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment The COI and username concerns have been dealt with on my user talk page and WP:UAA. Everyone's satisfied that the editor in question is unaffiliated. That aside, there is still the outstanding question of depth of coverage and whether it's enough. --Drm310 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Guys I am quite new to this, so bear with me please. There have been a number of recent improvements. I believe this article should be retained because of the following: According to WP:Band, in order for a band to pass they must meet at least one of the criteria. Having looked across a variety of sources, I’ve found that the band satisfies three of these (1,4, and 12). Please find these points as follows with their respective references: 1).The band Has been the subject of multiple published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self published, and are independent from the ensemble. This includes newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] 4).The band has received non-trivial coverage independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country: a)EXIT Festival (Serbia)^[12], b)Arenal Sound Festival (Spain)^[13]^[14]Both of these festivals are reliable sources, i.e. EXIT Festival was officially crowned as the ‘Best Major European Festival at the EU Festival Awards in 2014. It has also been awarded ‘Best Overseas Festival’ at the UK Festival Awards in 2007 and was ranked one of the 10 best major festivals at European Festivals Awards in the year 2009,2010,2011,and 2012. In 2013, EXIT and was awarded ‘Best Major Festival Award’^[15]. Arenal Sound has been described as an 80,000 people capacity festival. It takes place on the beaches of Arenal Beach in Castellon, Spain.^[16]^[17]^[18]. 12)The band has been a featured subject of substantial broadcast segment across national radio or TV network:^[19] I’ve managed to come across a host of other national television sources however I do not consider them reliable as they have been self published by the band and therefore not usable in the case of Wikipedia.

VIL12345678 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 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) 08:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 2 February 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: No one has responded to VIL12345678 yet. This is also the only "keep" argument. There have been commentators that have not voted. For these reasons, I have relisted this discussion a third time. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Arsenal Fest and EXIT Festival are big international festivals, so I suppose that points at a "documented international tour," which fulfills part of WP:MUSBIO #4 (Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.) Looks to me like the English coverage is trivial so far, though (this band needs to hire a better publicist). Unless better sources are found, I say Userfy or delete, and dust off/repost later this year if there's more coverage. (maybe I'm missing that some of the non-english sources are in reputable publications?) Earflaps (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 04:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Capră[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried speedy delete. The refs in Talk:Justin Capră, including designing and making a jetpack, and his Romanian-language page ro:Justin Capra, seem to show enough about him to warrant rediscussing, Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a number of reasons:
- The sourcing doesn't justify an article. We have one AP obituary (for whatever reason quoted from various news outlets), one interview in Adevărul, and a bunch of cruft.
- His achievements don't justify keeping the article, either. As far as I can tell, everything he did aside from the jet pack is fluff. As to the jet pack itself, well, there's actually a book on jet packs from Chicago Review Press, which addresses Capră in a chapter called "origin hoaxes". Quote: "as with his jet pack, there was no evidence shown to prove that any of his unconventional flying machines ever actually got off the ground. Capră eventually gave numerous interviews to newspapers and magazines in Romania and many articles have appeared there about the Romanian inventor of the jet pack.... Capră's claim of inventing the jet pack was widely believed in Romania, though nowhere else". And I think that says it, in a nutshell. He was an amateur inventor, and later a determined self-promoter, who dabbled into something like a jet pack, but didn't actually invent one, but his claims resonated in a country that loves to think it's responsible for various major inventions, and doubly so once he took on the line that "the Americans" stole his idea.
- The text is so chaotic that WP:DYNAMITE deserves to apply in any case.
As an alternative, we might perhaps consider a redirect to Jet_pack#Justin_Capr.C4.83.27s_flying_backpack, but that too ought to be thoroughly revamped in accordance with reliable claims made in reliable sources, rather than boosterism. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was approved by user User:Racklever to not be removed because it has refs:

20:27, 21 January 2015‎ User:Racklever (-60)‎ . . (Article has refs so "speedy deletion" removed)

Keep -- Contested deletion --

This page should not be deleted because Justin Capra is a legend between Romanian engineers. Some peoples contest the value of his work but the fact that he build outstanding engineering equipment in a very dark age of Communism from Romania means a lot to many people. He must be known to English readers as well. 09:33, 21 January 2015‎ User:94.177.32.154

Keep This page cannot be deleted because the reasons:
- This person has Awards from Geneva Invention Exhibition and has a Presidential Award of Excellence.
- Reading from the book mentioned by Biruitorul, I found three things:
- 1. National Geographic published an article in 2011 stating the Capra has been awarded a patent on July 8, 1958.
- 2. The book "The Great American Jet Pack" is written by a Lawyer, Steve Lehto, who does not have any page on wikipedia. By the title of the book, from the title it starts with the assumption the Jet Pack is "American". Maybe it is mostly American. But to simply ignore all the other people (from outside America) work and steps toward the "polished" Jet Pack, is not the way to go.
- 3. There are references in the book that the Jet Pack was presented by Justin Capra to the Romanian Academy and US Embassy in 1958, but the presentations didn't catch any or enough attention.
- The inventions of Justin Capra are presented in Museums in Romania.
- According to the Wikipedia rules, it has enough sources from respectable and trusted sources (I will only mention the sources not included by Anthony Appleyard copied in the next section.
- New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/20/world/europe/ap-eu-romania-obit-capra.html?_r=0
- Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/20/romanian-who-claimed-invented-world-1st-jetpack-crafted-fuel-efficient-cars/
- Associated Press: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_ROMANIA_OBIT_CAPRA?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Eminescus (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested / Queried speedy delete. The refs (copied below), including designing and making a jetpack, and his Romanian-language page ro:Justin Capra, seem to show enough about him to warrant rediscussing, Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref list reformatted:-

- "Romanian who claimed he invented world's 1st jetpack dies". Yahoo News. 20 January 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
- "Romanian who claimed he invented world's first jetpack dies". Canada CTV Television | CTV News. 20 January 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
- "Justin Capra, Inventor of 784 MPG Car, Dies at 81". GreenOptimistic.com. 20 January 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
- "Justin Capra Biography". FamousWhy. 20 January 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
- "Romanian who claimed he invented world's 1st jetpack dies". TheState.com. 20 January 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
- "Romanian who claimed he invented world's 1st jetpack dies". The Bellingham Herald . 20 January 2015. Retrieved 20
- "Justin Capra, the mind who could have changed Romania". Adevarul . 23 February 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
- "Car Built by Romanian Inventor Gets 784 MPG Fuel Efficiency". http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2011/05/19/justin-capra-car/#.VMFi4SvF-c5 . 19 May 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - 1) More from the Lehto book: "Romanian National Geographic published an article in 2011 stating that Capra had been awarded a patent on July 8, 1958, but they did not make any claims about whether he ever built or flew the device he patented."
  - 2) That Lehto is an attorney, or that he starts out with certain assumptions (which most authors do, by the way), is not especially relevant. That he has no Wikipedia article is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that his book is published by a reputable publisher and has undergone standard editorial review.
  - 3) As Lehto notes, "There is no question that Capra built two jet-pack-like devices". So that's not at issue. But not every tinkerer is notable, and as I've indicated, what we have about him at jet pack is more than ample.
  - 4) With all due respect, being the subject of an exhibit at the Prahova County Natural Sciences Museum does not advance a claim of independent notability.
  - 5) Please note that the article that begins "A Romanian inventor who claimed he beat the Americans to make the world's first jetpack" is an AP report, reproduced verbatim in various press outlets. It's dishonest to claim that constitutes multiple sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep the person is obviously notable. Dman41689 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have a look at WP:ITSNOTABLE. Simply asserting that something or someone is notable does not make it so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:42, 24 January 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, Daniel (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep. The recent editors have found enough reliable sources to meet WP:SECONDARY. Fiachra10003 (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DYNAMITE. While a few (credulous) RS seem to exist (the bulk of the references are clones), the article is an irredeemable mass of hoax/fringe nonsense at best and loony old-time communist propaganda at worst. There's no evidence this person made anything. Pax 01:02, 11 February 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't care a bit if Capră is a hoaxer or not, FYI WP is full of articles about hoaxs and hoaxers, eg take a look at categories Impostors and Hoaxes in science. The subject has obviously received multiple reliable coverage, and valid sourcing includes the already cited chapter in the Steve Lehto's book The Great American Jet Pack: The Quest for the Ultimate Individual Lift Device which not just rebuts Capră's claims but is also itself a significant secondary reliable source about the subject. WP:UGLY is not a reason for deletion, and I suggest the editors who complain about the current state of the article to edit the article and to improve it as they see fit, they're welcome. Cavarrone 07:49, 12 February 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 WP:BOLDly re-redirected to Captain Underpants#Film. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFF as still in development. Was originally redirected to Captain Underpants#Film which currently has all the detail that have been copied to this article creation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Underpants#Film and warn the editor who is adding content again and again. If Chaulin humberto tuteto want to contribute article, do it in Draft:Captain Underpants (film). Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:52, 12 February 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 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North High School (North St. Paul, Minnesota)[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Propose to redirect to District or City per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. High schools are considered notable per editor consensus. The WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay cited by the nominator states that high schools are generally kept. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. A 110-year-old public high school[36][37] with plenty of coverage in reliable sources [38]. Wikipedia's longstanding precedents for such schools are clear that this article should be kept. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSCHOOL, we keep high school articles so long as we can find evidence the school exists as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSCHOOL. Additionally, although just at the Start level now, there is too much encyclopedic information available to merge to the city article; no article for North St. Paul-Maplewood Oakdale ISD 622 has been created.--Hjal (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:42, 12 February 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens Alive![edit]

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

Fails GNG with a surfeit of local and trivial refs. It seems like an overactive PR director got write-ups in all the local freebies. The Bloomberg Businessweek ref is a standard company snapshot, and The Oregonian ref is a one-line note about an award. A major contributor to the article also appears to be a COI. Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - First of all, I wrote 95% of the article and I do not have a COI. I know you meant the article creator and not me, but please get your facts straight before making such statements. Basically none of his text still exists, maybe a sentence or two at most. Now, on to the relevant question - notability. The article already has 15 sources - about 10 are both not local (the company is based in Indiana, not Oregon, and there is actually no consensus that local sources are invalid anyway) and completely independent of the subject. Several are quite extensive (multiple pages); I find it amusing that a source that is not necessary to supports anything (Bloomberg, part of a multi-ref line) and a source that supports one whole line of the article (Oregonian) were singled out in an attempt to make the sourcing look like crap, while the extensive sources (which are decidedly not local) were ignored. And, for the record I only used about 10% of the sources I found.

In addition to to abundance of sources, the company is clearly important in their industry, and is not at all some local company. They operate about a dozen subsidiaries, 4 of which are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. They employ 1000 people during peak months - an enormous amount for a catalog company. They control a huge percentage of the seed catalog industry - almost twice the sales of the next 4 largest companies combined: [39]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a "standard profile" at Bloomberg is far from meaningless. It is not just stats, but rather includes an editorial description of the company. Bloomberg does not waste their editorial time writing up random/small companies, but rather it does write-ups on important industry players. I would guess the vast majority of the companies they have profiled are notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First I want to state I have no relationship with this company or article. I saw it come up on the AFD listing. I read over the article and references. While I did think there was a good bit of semi-promotionalism in spots, I found that overall the article subject is covered over numerous verifiable reputable resources. In my view the piece in Bloomberg alone would make the article achieve notability, and in combination with other references in the article make it more than pass WP:GNG. The company itself is sort of a conglomerate now, and I can understand why Bloomberg did a piece on it. I have updated the article removing some of the cruft and puffiness that made the article seem semi-promotional at times. Some material was too intricate in detail for the average reader and gave the impression it was bragging about all the acquisitions. WordSeventeen (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ - I don't see it. The 11 sources: [1], [2], and [3] are "Multichannel Merchant", which, as far as I can tell is a marketing company that publishes things about your company if you pay them. It's a little unclear, and I'm happy to be corrected, but it reads and looks like PR. [4] is primary. [5] is a brief mention (name the company, give their motto, been around more than a decade, excellent reputation). [6] is ok. a little coverage in a local pub which cites Multichannel Merchant. [7] is routine local business coverage (a store is closing, it's owned by Gardens Alive). [8] is the Bloomberg snapshot. [9] is a brief mention. [10] is a brief mention (granted, for winning a local award -- by local I mean coverage by a local rather than national-scale source). [11] is a trade organization award catalog type thing. If these constituted the entirety of sources about the subject it would be an easy delete -- all PR, routine industry business news, brief mentions -- but while I didn't turn up anything great it seems like there's more. Especially if, as above, they're one of the biggest in the seeds industry. I'd also add that while it may not have been written by someone with a COI, it has an "awards" style section and links prominently to an ad in the external links for crying out loud. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong about Multichannel Merchant. It is an industry publication with an extensive history (including a print publication) and an editorial staff, not a pay-for-play operation. For example, they publish negative stories [40][41][42][43] where the company refuses to comment. Here are a few of today's headlines:

"USPS 1Q Shipping and Package Volume Increased 12.8%" - the post office surely is not paying for coverage

"Kate Spade Shutting Down Kate Spade Saturday Business" - a negative article that surely the company didn't ask to be published

"RadioShack's Chapter 11 Filing Includes Restructuring Plan" - Radioshack is not promoting their bankruptcy

"Possible Shutdown Looms Over West Coast Ports as Two Sides Engage in Brinksmanship" - no specific company would be paying for this

A reputation section is a standard part of an article - its not my fault Garden's Alive's press has been all positive. The "ad" in the external links section was an oversight on my part (i.e. accidentally left behind when cleaning up the original creator's article) and has now been removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt you re: Multichannel Merchant. I've struck my !vote above accordingly. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is sufficiently sourced as is, but there are many more in-depth articles available on Highbeam, so the article could even be expanded. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:24, 12 February 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.