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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girthology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

From what I can tell from a Google search, this appears to be a fictional field of study. I'd be glad to withdraw if someone can find sources, but I saw none. --Jakob (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An odd thing to write fiction about, but fiction it is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence this is anything other than the junk it appears to be. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can only assume this is a hoax. There's absolutely nothing out there that uses this term. An 1880 medical treatise that appears in Google searches is an OCR failure for "pathology". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a very highly probable hoax. Carrite (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a single purpose editor with only three edits, all to this piece. Closing administrator should be sure to spank them. Carrite (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per Carrite above. PianoDan (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should be a field, until that time.... MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete = such a delightfully naughty hoax. Get it, girthology? Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Last AfD closed for procedural reasons. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is on the first team of a prominent premier league team and has received a call up to his national team. At the time this was created he was the only player without a page on both squads. For an example of a player without a cap for Liverpool that has a page, see Sheyi Ojo. Seems notable enough to me. Eman52 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You're not understanding WP:NFOOTBALL, Ward has not played for the Liverpool first-team yet, so shouldn't have an article; Sheyi Ojo has played for Wigan Athletic on loan so passes WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obviously fails NFOOTBALL at this stage, as he didn't play for Wales when he was called up, nor has he made an appearance for Liverpool yet. In terms of RS coverage, there's [1], which is good, but everything else is coverage of his transfer (so is routine), is local (Liverpool Echo), or both. There's a few bits on unreliable sources/fansites, but those obviously don't count. Whilst I'm personally surprised at the lack of "who is this randomer who has been called up to the national team"-type coverage, the simple fact is that he fails GNG as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league nor for his national team, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Separately, the media coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despit being in the first team for two seasons now, he has not debuted for Liverpool in any competitive fixture and has not been sent to loan as well. He doesn't seem to debut this season for Liverpool as Simon Migmolet is the first choice and second choice Brad Jones is back from injury. Hence he fails WP:NFOOTBALL.--Sammanhumagain (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage [2] Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• One source is not enough to meet GNG... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that one in-depth feature combined with more mundane and typical coverage over an extended period (such as [3], [4], [5], and [6]) is enough. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it should be noted that the daily post is a regional newspaper as well. This is hardly a full page interview in a major paper. The rest is just routine transfer and match reporting. I still think this falls below the level needed for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I realise the rest is routine (well the first of the rest isn't particularly routine, but it is indeed very short). I just wanted to make sure it was clear that there were multiple sources verifying the actual existence of the player and the facts in addition to the one good article. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case, why are you claiming it passes GNG? Because your sources clearly don't help it to do so. The only non-routine and not-totally-local source that seems to exist is the Daily Post one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ?!? I stated clearly that I think that one Daily Post article COMBINED with more mundane routine coverage over an extended period is enough. Disagree with me, sure ... but why point out that the routine coverage that I pointed out was routine is routine? Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because if you know the routine coverage is routine, why are you claiming this satisfies GNG, when reading the notability page clearly states that "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said it satisfied GNG. I said the single article satisfied GNG. I explicitly noted that the routine articles were mundane and typical; they simply provide verification for the facts in the article, rather than satisfying GNG. This is the 3rd time I've clarified this comment, which I think was clear enough the first time. If my point was unclear to you the first time, I apologize, but I'm not sure how many times I need to clarify what I said. Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not insignificant coverage in local sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SALT? That's going a bit far, don't you think? There's only been one AfD prior to this, which was closed immediately as having no rationale, and it's not like we're talking about someone who doesn't exist, or plays in Reading Division 4... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is User:GiantSnowman's justification for Salting? That seems completely and absolutely unnecessary for an article that has never been recreated, for a real person, who has some (though perhaps not enough) significant coverage, and has appeared on the bench for a top EPL club 11 times this season alone, and twice for his national team. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, it relates to the fact that the article was created by a confirmed sock-puppeteer. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! That makes a bit more sense then - though I think it's overkill, given the inevitability of the article. Nfitz (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more that if you (or someone else in good standing) is going to start a draft, it would be better that the draft is started from scratch rather than retaining the taint of sock-puppetry. Once the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, that editor can go to DRV to have the creation protection lifted and then there can be no doubt about the article's legitimacy or validity. It's perhaps a bit "protectionist" but I don't think it's overkill (especially given the sock-puppetry case in question). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, exactly what @Stalwart111: said - @Nfitz: it might be advisable to do a bit of reaearch/digging before jumping down my throat in future please :) GiantSnowman 10:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has jumped down anyone's throat. Asking for your justification is not jumping down your throat - clearly there was something more to your comment, and you have now provided that. Nfitz (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree, Salting is going too far when it appears likely that even if Ward never plays a game for Liverpool, he will one day represent another league club, either on loan or as a permanent transfer. Until he does though, Delete. OGBC1992 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draftspace - It appears that there is no consensus to keep the article, however given that there is already 1 good article about him, and he's appeared on the bench for a top EPL club 11 times this season alone, and twice for his national team, it's quite likely that he'll get a match somewhere sooner or later (such is the lot of a keeper ...). Let's put the article where it can be properly updated, rather than wasting someone's time in the future, unbeknowingly rewriting it from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He has not played. Article can always be recreated if he has a wiki worthy career. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:36, 22 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 21:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser University's East Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

See also Simon Fraser University's Central Gymnasium and Simon Fraser University's West Gymnasium. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Simon_Fraser_University as an alternative to deletion.--Antigng (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:40, 22 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. Could also have been speedied per WP:CSD#A3. postdlf (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Gibraltar-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

1. It was previously deleted in 2009 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Gibraltar-related articles.

2. It is (currently) a totally pointless page (it consists of 26 empty sections and a link to Gibraltar).

3. Wikipedia actually has hundreds of articles about Gib so this "index" is misleading.

4. It sits in article space (categorized alongside actual encyclopedic lists such as List of shipwrecks of Gibraltar) but as an "Index of ... articles" page it's too self-referential to be part of the encyclopedia content; if it belongs anywhere it belongs under Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar.

5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar already has a _far_ more comprehensive list of "Proposed Gibraltar-related articles". DexDor (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article mention in subject was created to complate the Lists of country-related topics. If you found any artilce about Gibraltar you may link that to or in Index of Gibraltar-related articles. If you know some other pages which is about list of Gibraltar related artlces, you should redirect Index of Gibraltar-related articles to new page.Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:14, 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 speedy delete under criterion G7. I only saw one editor who contributed content (others formatted, tagged, etc.). I've got a feeling it wouldn't have survived the AfD, but I'll call it a speedy delete rather than apply the snowball clause. —C.Fred (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like a case of too soon, she has yet to actually be in any thing, now she does sound like she does have a chance at least to have a article someday, but just not yet Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-also looks like a not inherited issue as her sister does have a page. So a redirect to Neha Sharma be a good idea also. Wgolf (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FoxyTasks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of coverage by reliable secondary sources; fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT.  Gongshow   talk 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Usual variety non-notable software spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear all. I'll try to improve the article, hopefully addressing both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I'm reading through notability and referencing guidelines, but would appreciate every constructive suggestion how to make the article the best quality possible. Thanks, Thealx (talk) 15:32, 21 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 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Team Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested speedy deletion. Really, there's nothing here to indicate notability: no outside sources, no third-party coverage, all references lead back to its sponsor. Non-notable "annual sporting event". Seattle (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle I am doing my best. I found one third party link but that's just to an old man, 91, who rowed a lot. It's amazing. I am trying to get this started and am excited about it. We'll see. Maybe this will be deleted (well, probably yes) but I am sorry I deleted the notice but I will see what else I can include. I am really sorry that C2 keeps the event so close. Groan. How can I make this work? Is there a proper path? Chrisabraham (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If its sponsor "keeps the event so close", it's probably not notable. No sponsor ever wants to keep one of their events "close"; if you could only find one third-party link, than its probably not notable. Seattle (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 6,000 participants in these events. Maybe I should create a "Virtual Challenge page instead of a Virtual Team Challenge page? There are events planned over the entire year. As I said, there were over 6k participants and there have been over the last number of years. The participants are from all over the world and the only commonality is that one must use the Concept2 rowing ergometer to row it -- but this is the same as the CRASH-B Sprints as well. There are participants all across high schools, colleges, private clubs, virtual teams (I am personally a team member, myself). Chrisabraham (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If none are notable, I wouldn't recommend creating one at all. Seattle (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mostly consists of copyright violations. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable subject created by a paid editor fails WP:GNG . Theroadislong (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Alexander (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While there is a large body of work from the subject, coverage about her by reliable secondary sources is self-generated to near non-existent. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not the subject of dedicated works, but an easy pass of WP:JOURNALIST #1—widely cited either for her reporting or as an authority in gaming:

czar ⨹ 01:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Czar's sources, plus one more - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/07/in-praise-of-leigh-alexander-gamergate-video-games-sexism-bullying - Nomination is a terrible failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The problem with all of those (except the Guardian one) is that they're circular. Of course the subject is popular in gaming blogs, which by definition are not independent of her. I did not overlook those, I looked for more material similar to the Guardian article. Unfortunately I didn't find any. This is the same problem where startups are "notable" because they're mentioned in Valleywag and TechCrunch. None of those are independent of the subjects, and the situation is the same here. Compare to other tech journalists who are actually notable outside of their scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours walled garden environment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And niche, tabletop RPGs will be notable when covered in niche, tabletop RPG publications. (More like the argument's circular.) Video game journalists (in vetted publications) refer to the author as an authority. This isn't a GNG argument—that lots of people have discussed her in depth—but a creative professional argument—that she is widely seen to be a figure in the field. Her work is quoted somewhere in every major publication that ever covers games as a cursory issue. Nothing else to add on this topic. czar ⨹ 13:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. The available sources suggest that the person is regarded as an important figure by peers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:17, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Book of Social Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT, little to no outside coverage of the book. Seattle (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "The Big Book of Social Media Offers Excellent Tips for All Organizations". Business Insider. 13 August 2011.
  2. Thornton, Leslie-Jean. "Book Review: The Big Book of Social Media: Case Studies, Stories, Perspectives and Future Media." Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 67, no. 2 (2012): 185-188

     Links to the review: http://jmc.sagepub.com/content/67/2/185.citation and http://www.academia.edu/4622065/Book_Review_The_Big_Book_of_Social_Media_Case_Studies_Stories_Perspectives_and_Future_Media.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Big Book of Social Media to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Business Insider article was taken verbatim from smallbiztrends.com. Its author, Pierre DeBois, hasn't left a review of less than "4 stars" for his articles that I've checked. It reads as sponsored content and thus not an indicator of notability. Seattle (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That Pierre DeBois hasn't left a review of less than "4 stars" for the sample of articles you checked does not indicate that this is sponsored content. Perhaps he only reviews books he enjoys, or perhaps he doesn't like to harshly criticize others' work.

  http://smallbiztrends.com/about^WebCite says:

  Ethics Statement
  
  Small Business Trends is committed to reporting fairly. Our writers and editors may not write about people or entities with which they have financial interests, without disclosure. Our coverage is not influenced by advertisers.

  Advertising is handled by our advertising department and is kept separate from the editorial department. Advertising and Sponsored Content is clearly identified as such.
  
  Editorial review policy:
  
  We do not accept payment for reviewing books or products, or pointing them out as resources. Our book reviewers may, however, receive review copies of books (a customary practice in the publishing industry). For software product reviews, our reviewers typically use free accounts, demo accounts or temporary review accounts. For hardware reviews, we typically use temporary product loans provided for media review purposes, or a product previously owned by the reviewer.

  There is no evidence that Small Business Trends publishes sponsored content.

  Cunard (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has had significant coverage from 3rd party independent sources to meet WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How do you define "significant coverage" outside of the sources already listed above? Two sources, one of which appears to be sponsored, don't constitute significance. Seattle (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Both sources provide substantial coverage of the subject. Neither are sponsored sources. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 21 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Westwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, has only had minor roles and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. The abundant fluff about his social life by the WP:SPA creator, and the previously deleted article's history, both suggest autobiography or WP:COI. That can be cleaned up easily, but the problem of notability will remain. Dai Pritchard (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete minor actor who lacks coverage to meet notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Delete I have looked at the guidelines and have taken away "Musician" feel not enough coverage and references to the subjects music. I have also further researched the subjects roles and story lines, added more references to show the subject is of significance & importance. I have re-read through the article and made the grammar and information about the subject more clearer. GabSalciute (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Delete I have researched more adding more references, also after reading the guidelines I can see from my first edit how people would of perceived the subject to be a person with minor roles. possiblly in my wording not making it clear that the subject started out as a background artist, then from that the subject was cast into lead roles. The subject has had significant roles in multiple television shows, the subject also has a large fan base sourced from social media and the internet. The Bill and the subject still to this day has a "Cult" following due to the re-runs of the soap opera. The Bill also has a "Convention" in which they invite Actors from the show to appear, also the "Cult" following want to see the popular soap opera return to the screens of ITV. I am still researching more about The Bill and would like to further contribute to wikipedia GabSalciute (talk) 14:43, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Trunov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to meet notability criteria, and to exist mostly for promotion. Piramidon (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = promotional crapinsky, with love from Russia. Did he lick Putin's chest as well? Bearian (talk) 03:09, 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 - Closing as Keep as all has been improved (Thanks everyone) and the Speedy Delete is pretty much a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument but either way clear keep here. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Sufi Mufti Azangachhi Shaheb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreliable and self referenced. Promotional tone. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have removed the puffery. Someone from a previous century in a book would count as notable. Certainly the referencing could be improved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete : Referenced book is a sloppy self published work \partisan work without any credibility or popularity. No other secondary sources present , seems to be written like a fan page with many honorifics.Summichum (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -Per Graeme Bartlett and I've added few references in the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Graeme Bartlett and Anupmehra — CutestPenguin^Hangout 09:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -The References has been modified. Now It should not be deleted. Nijam122 11:45, 20 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 ALL, Nakon 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Part of a sprawling series of non resident ambassador. Already several have been deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Belarus.

Also nominating:

• Ambassador of Iceland to Costa Rica
• Ambassador of Iceland to Cyprus
• Ambassador of Iceland to Cuba
• Ambassador of Iceland to Croatia
• Ambassador of Iceland to the Czech Republic
• Ambassador of Iceland to the Dominican Republic
• Ambassador of Iceland to Ethiopia
• Ambassador of Iceland to Egypt
• Ambassador of Iceland to Estonia
• Ambassador of Iceland to Georgia
• Ambassador of Iceland to Greece
• Ambassador of Iceland to Grenada
• Ambassador of Iceland to Guyana
• Ambassador of Iceland to the Holy See
• Ambassador of Iceland to Hungary
• Ambassador of Iceland to Indonesia LibStar (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All: All of these articles fail WP:GNG, specifically, the single source given on these pages ([7]) does not establish notability and I was unable to find better sources. Shanata (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per previous discussions. There is nothing notable about non-resident ambassadors. Tavix |  Talk  23:08, 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 snow close. At best this is just something someone came up with WP:ONEDAY that has no relation to the computer language, but it's clear that this is not notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is OR. (Although according to Google Scholar there is such a thing as a bubble language in computer science, it's not this.) – Margin1522 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR. Bazj (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above - Clearly OR. –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this as non-notable, sourced only from YouTube and Gaia Online (= internet forum). Interested editors may look into writing up for the combinatorics concept though. [8][9] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 23:52, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Golick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't believe that this person has lasting notability. Everything in this article has to do with him doing his job Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – It seems that he was a fine person and not unknown in the open source community, but WP:ANYBIO needs a "widely recognized contribution". Unfortunately I don't think contributions like the Ruby on Rails libraries were covered widely enough to qualify under that. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Lots of podcasts call themselves "Real Talk". For example here we have "Todd & Larry, 2 west coast dudes", and "Adam & Koko/Rambling with Ryan", etc. Pax 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment—I'm seeing a large number of ghits across a pretty wide spectrum of topics. I can't point to any subset that would definitely establish notability, but I think someone who is more connected with the rails community might be able to make a good case here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—James made contributions the MRI (the main ruby virtual machine) ^[1], additionally he made contributions to Google's tcmalloc a rather notable project. He gave many talks around the world on a variety of topics in computer science and engineering ^[2]. And finally he was an advocate for Women working in open source - devoting time to mentoring women entering the generally male dominated world of open source. All of these I believe point to him being widely recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephGaudet (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only reliable source I see is his obituary. ~KvnG 21:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Links
  • Hacker News
  • Medium (written by Founder/CEO of Quirky and one of Forbes "America's Most Promising CEOs Under 35")
  • Reddit ("Rubyist and mod of this sub")
  • "The James Golick Grant for Women in Computology" (referenced from this blog, which also has several other links to obituaries/tributes. However, the grant was actually started by his family, so not in itself contributing to notability or independent sourcing)
  • AlleyWatch (was to present at "New York Tech Meetup")
  • The Province obituary (previously mentioned)

50.153.132.140 (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RELIABLE and let me know which of these you believe qualify. ~KvnG 14:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 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. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am submitting this article for deletion. As far as I can tell, this does not meet any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability - specifically, WP:ANYBIO which states:

Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

Since no other Mr. World Canada has a Wikipedia article, there is nothing noteworthy about Ron Wear that makes an article on him worthy for inclusion. His passing relationship with Tara Teng seems to be the only reason an article was created for him in the first place, as the only page linking to him is the page for Tara Teng. However, to quote again from WP:BIO, Ron Wear's vague association with Ms. Teng does not confer notability onto him.

That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles.

The sources cited to form the bulk of this article are superfluous at best. For example, footnote [9], which states that Ron Wear is an active swimmer and yoga practitioner. Not only is this information irrelevant (under the guidelines at WP:NOTE), but it fails to meet the criteria on diversity of sources. The article reads, in its current form, as a promotional biography of a former beauty pageant winner who has accomplished nothing to make him worthy of a Wikipedia entry.

69.158.90.116 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that Ron Wear is apparently the only winner from this particular pageant with his own Wikipedia page tells me that simply being a pageant winner does not create notability, as if it did there would likely be other similar pages. Further, the article does not provide any evidence for Mr. Wear's distinctiveness from other winners of the same pageant, as it mostly discusses events he participated in after winning and it is incredibly likely that none of these events are out of the ordinary for such a winner or have any kind of historical merit that require documentation. Finally, as noted in the original move for deletion, the majority of the article is dedicated to documenting Wear's professional relationship with another pageant winner. This also tells me that Mr. Wear does not have significant notability as if he did his article would not have to be padded with irrelevant information about the fact that he once met another pageant winner, especially as any rational person would be able to assume that he has likely met other pageant winners and this does not need to be documented. Essentially the page reads like it was either a.) written by Mr. Wear's publicist or b.) Written by Ms. Teng's publicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, winner of major competition, Mr. World Canada 2010. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion regarding the status of the article at this time, but Mr. World Canada is not the highest tier of that particular competition: it is the Canadian qualifiers for Mister World. I am dubious that the national title is sufficient in and of itself to confer notability (and have not evaluated the subject to determine if notability has been otherwise demonstrated). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Admin--please don't decide on this until CU etc. have run their course at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From the newspaper articles cited there appears to be significant coverage of this individual in ten secondary sources. If in the future a "List of Mr. World Canada winners" is written, and if this individual has not by then achieved notability for other events, then there is a potential to redirect this article to there, but for the time being at least I think there is enough independent coverage to justify maintaining the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mr. World Canada, which already has some of the same content. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I don't think it matters so much that no other winner has an article. That could just be because no one has gotten around to creating one. But winning Mr. World Canada doesn't seem to have generated that much coverage. Most of the sources in the article are fairly trivial one-line mentions. The best ones were from his agency and the TV station where he hosted a show, but those aren't independent. And I couldn't find any other good ones. I think his best shot at notability would be getting some significant acting roles. If that happens, this article could be revived. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sourcing in the article appear to be sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as coverage in reliable third-party sources appears to push this subject across the verifiability and notability thresholds of WP:GNG. That this is the first Wikipedia article about a winner of this competition is not relevant as somebody has to be first. (Notability is not inherited but nor is it dependent on the existence of similar articles.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:00, 21 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) –Davey2010^Talk 16:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AS Știința Miroslava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Club which never played at least in second level national football league. XXN (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:FOOTYN - club has played in a national competition. Playing in the second tier in not a baseline for notability in any guideline. Article needs improving not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has played in national cup competitions. Nfitz (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has played in notable competitions and has received significant coverage in the media. IJA (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable as above; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:05, 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 speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Break Shark Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references, no sign of nobility, was listed for PROD (and deleted) before Fortdj33 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unremarkable TV movie with promotional text and no evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I bow to MichaelQSchmidt's sourcing and expertise in this area. Solid evidence of notability has been established.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just removed the summary as copyright infringement from here. Previous versions of the article were copyvio from another site. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seacrhable multiple releases, in multiple languages, under multiple titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greece (transliterated ISO-LATIN-1 title):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

• Keep per meeting WP:NF through multiple sources being available and thus it having the WP:POTENTIAL for improvement to serve the project and its readers. Sorry Fortdj33 & Mojo Hand, I always like to look first [10][11] before opining. And I would have properly declined a prod myself and simply tagged it for improvement after finding lengthy reviews at DVD Talk, Beyond Hollywood, Dread Central, Blog Critics, DVD Verdict, Pop Matters, Qwipster, Reel Film, and The Aisle Seat in English just to start, and even more non-English sources. I will be working on fixing it up some now per what I easily found and per WP:NRVE. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to be sorry; I am happy to work with anyone who is legitimately interested in improving articles. I did see some of these reviews before I made my initial assessment, but they mostly looked like self published websites. The best source I found was one you didn't mention - a review republished on the New York Times website.[12] That one struck me as potentially reliable, but the other reviews didn't look especially reliable. However, I am ready to be convinced.--Mojo Hand (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay... well, DVD Talk, Dread Central, Blog Critics, DVD Verdict, and Pop Matters have been long found acceptable for sourcing films. With just those six, we have a meeting of WP:NF. See WP:NRVE. The one you found in New York Times while reliable enough, is a a reprint of the "overview" offered by Jason Buchanan in AllMovieGuide, but AMG does offer a slightly longer review by Jeremy Wheeler. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• and I did find a review in the Washington Post and a mention in USA Today. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll admit, I didn't look very hard for any sources to establish notability, it appeared that this was just another poorly created article, which had sat around without references long enough to be deleted. Now that MichaelQSchmidt has improved the article, I withdraw my nomination to delete it. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nomination and all delete votes have been withdrawn, but I'll leave it to an uninvolved editor to close this. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like your only involvement was a comment above and fixing the copyright violation - I don't see any objection to your closing this.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly plenty of source coverage of this topic. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 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. Nakon 02:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weclan Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article about a firm co-founded by one Vishal Raj, contributed by User:Okvishal who has previously created articles about Vishal Raj and been warned about conflict of interest editing. All but one of the given references are routine company registration listings; the exception is a short Times of India local Hubballi article about the said person's ventures, which mentions in one paragraph that he has registered this company. Although that is probably enough for CSD A7 to be inappropriate, I am seeing no evidence that this relatively new firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Yes, fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:37, 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. postdlf (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Petrobourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable per WP:MADEUP. No reliable sources, a search turns up nothing. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I may say that the Grand Duchy of Petrobourg is indeed a notable Brazilian micronation. It secceeded from the Holy Empire of Reunion almost one year ago and it is recognized not only by most of Brazilian micronations but also by the LoSS (League of Secessionist States), the most important micronational organization. Its founders are experienced micronationalists and the project is a serious one. It is not easy to find references to ANY micronation because those are political simulation; generally, the best references will be autoreferences or references within the micronational world. Mostly of the micronational activity occurs in YahooGroups and the actual press don't cover it. Wikipedia shall be a font of information, not a reference-control-freak. Lets keep things reasonable and use common sense.Giancarlo (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS for what is and isn't a reliable source, and for why they are needed. YahooGroups definitely is not a reliable source, there are none in the article, and you have not identified any.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. I believe it applies to the present matter. Please notice the article is not claiming anything extraordinary, just basic informations about a Brazilian micronation.Giancarlo (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the last clause in that section: so long as ... the article is not based primarily on such sources. So it needs other, reliable, sources. Where are they?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. WP is based on reliable sources. You can create your own wiki on wikia--Yopie (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the sources are not reliable? The micronation's own official website and messages in respectable micronational forums are sources enough for micronational references. Please, this is not like a real country; we will not find the same kind of reference. In the other hand, the lack of traditional press reference is not an argument for the micronation not being notable.Giancarlo (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:Hoax. My only concern is that deleting this article may destroy this struggling micronation. As far as I can see this article is one of the key pillars of it's existence. I'd hate to have my delete vote destroy a country. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no point or argument, just a disrespectful opinion.Giancarlo (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there are no refs for the existence of this. It looks like a hoax. I am gathering that you are involved in this entity. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are in fact the "Founder" of this micronation. I suspect that may give you a COI in this discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As foresaid, please see Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. I believe it applies to the present matter. Please notice the article is not claiming anything extraordinary, just basic informations about a Brazilian micronation.Giancarlo (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should probably read the link you have added. You need other refs. There are none. See WP:Hoax. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Against deletion On-line Micronations are what they are and what can be expected from them. Petrobourg is a notable micronation for micronationalists, as much as "hard-paste porcelain" is unknown by 99.9% of the world, and still has an entry on Wikipedia. --Claudre (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:MADEUP. Of course the lack of sources is an argument for this micronation not being notable, as it always is. Hard-paste porcelain has had a real economic and social effect and that effect has been studied, this micronation has not. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Great flag. Lousy coat of arms. Absent RS. No section on sertaneja, so it's a hoax. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cute, but absolutely no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:11, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damjan Šiškovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Clubjustin3 (talk) 16:51, 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. (Despite the Delete vote I'm closing as Keep as the nom hasn't given any reason at all for deleting, Unfortunately you can't just bring an article here without a reason..., If anyone wants to renominate I have no objections) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sammanhumagain (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment-well you have to make a reason why this should be deleted first. Wgolf (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I created this page, Ward was the only Liverpool first team player without a page. I also tried to put in as many categories as possible. If people don't like it, they can add to it. I don't see what is wrong with keeping this page. Eman52 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep #1: Nom has not given a rationale for deletion. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:37, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Hussain Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Listing this for discussion. Research doesn't suggest that we have enough sources to sustain an article for this, there does not appear to be a transwiki to look at, and the sources here do not seem to be high quality. On the other hand, there may be a wealth of non-english sources I'm unaware of in this context, but it's not apparent in any searches I've done over a few days on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER coupled with longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep probably as he was an Ahmadi, he did not get Pakistani media attention, but nonetheless, he is a notable general. Faizan (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks to satisfy WP:SOLDIER#3. General officer confirms his was the rank in Pakistan. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if the claims can be confirmed, I have no issue with this being kept. We have three keep votes right now that simply assume what is claimed as true, and no sources of any apparent quality to verify it. Can anyone help on this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We didn't "assume what is claimed as true". We read the sources and came to a conclusion that on balance of probabilities it probably is. A quick check on Google will reveal many other sources confirming he was a general, some of them pretty reliable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, what about these sources is it that puts it forward in a reliable/RS manner, then? There seems to be some confusion as to where I'm coming from on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. It's perfectly clear that he was a general officer who commanded a division in combat. That's easily sufficient for an article to exist on him. This is "articles for deletion", not "articles for improvement". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SOLDIER, not only a general officer, but a significant leader of a notable battle.

Hassan Abbas (2005). Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America's War on Terror. M.E. Sharpe. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-7656-1496-4.

Sube Singh Ahlawat (19 June 2013). An Infantry Battalion in Combat: A Critical Appraisal of Battle Situations Encountered by an Infantry Battalion. Lancer Publishers. p. 96. ISBN 978-1-935501-36-7.

Col (Retd) SG MEHDI (July 1998). "Operation Gibraltar: Role of SSG Para Commandos". Defense Journal. Dynavis (Pvt) Ltd.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:22, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shape Effects Phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails our WP:NFRINGE guideline. No independent sources are available attesting to this as a PHENOMENON. Clearly this is serving as a coatrack for pyramid power promoters. jps (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am seeing hits for "Shape Effect" and "Shape Effects" in Google Scholar but I don't think they refer to the same thing, although I can't say for sure as I don't understand what the subject actually is: [13][14]. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those are completely different ideas. jps (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article about a single non-notable paper whose actual science bits can be distilled into "different shapes have different absorption characteristics", which is... not exactly a great revelation. The rest is, as pointed out, WP:FRINGEy pyramid power woo. Kolbasz (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I think the reasons that you are using to suggest deletion of the page is missing the scientific integrity. Any experienced user or student can simply replicate the electromagnetic simulation— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimyen2014 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Jimyen2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the absence of something different and less original to refer to. Also, has a definitely pyramidal look to it (as opposed to pear-shaped...), although they have avoided quantum and crystals so far. Peridon (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete What do you mean is quantum and crystals? What you are saying is not logical form the scientific point of view. I think the reasons that you are using to suggest deletion of the page is missing the scientific integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimyen2014 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the fringe ideas attached to science but not completely in it seem to involve crystals or talking about 'quantum' effects that are totally impossible - and also scientifically illogical. For examples, see the Feedback page every week in the New Scientist magazine. What you must do is to show that there is discussion of this phenomenon other than in the work of the people cited. We need to know that this has been noticed and reviewed by people other than those writing the papers containing it. BTW I've struck through your do not delete just above because you are only allowed one Keep (or Do Not Delete), or Delete. Everything else must either be just stuck on like this post, or be labelled Comment. The reviewing admin (not me) will assess the arguments rather than the number of !votes when deciding the result of this discussion. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please sign posts on talk pages and pages like this with ~~~~ which may look silly, but it's code that puts your signature and the date/time stamp on - like this: Peridon (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I'm not qualified to comment on the science, but the one journal paper seems to be the one in "Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications". It gets zero cites on Google Scholar, and the publisher ([www.scirp.org/journal/jemaa/^{[predatory publisher]} Scientific Research Publishing]) is on Beall’s List of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". This doesn't inspire confidence. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per Margin1522's reasoning: the publication venue is fishy and there's no sign of anyone else in science taking the research seriously. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources not reliable enough to establish notability. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Skimming the first page of the journal article suggests there's a very good reason it was published in such a marginal venue. The rest is straight-up WP:FRINGE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete. Although, the first reference (journal article) looks like an extension of a conference article. I think from my technical point of view this discovery will cause a revolution in the packaging industry. I think all those who are suggesting removing the article are not specialized in the bio-electromagnetic field of science. They are only following Wikipedia rules. The EM simulation is verifiable. Asiawest (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)— Asiawest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, this is Wikipedia, so we follow the rules here. They call for notability and reliable independent references WP:RS to prove it. In academic and scientific circles, referencing to primary papers is the way to do it. Here, we insist on outside notability - proof that a paper is being reviewed and discussed - and we don't publish original research WP:OR or have articles about things that are not reasonably widely reviewed. We do have articles about Homeopathic medicine and Astrology - both areas that I personally consider as being idiotic, but which are very widely reviewed and discussed, and therefore we should have neutrally worded articles on them. A deletion here doesn't mean 'gone for ever'. It means that when the notability requirement can be met, an article can be created then. But we don't have articles in advance of the notability being shown. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Fringe PianoDan (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To any new editors visiting this discussion: The final decision about the article will be made by an admin who is not involved, and it will be based on the arguments made with attention in particular to the rules of Wikipedia. Posts by editors with no other edits tend to be given less weight than those by more experienced editors who refer to the policies. The decision is not made by counting votes. Peridon (talk) 17:43, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Janoščin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a footballer who has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. C679 13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 13:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 20:42, 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. Possible merge with List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Nakon 21:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained disappearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This subject is neither something which can be described beyond the definition (fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY) nor feasible as a list article because of the very broad scope (fails WP:STANDALONE). As currently written, it is not really a list article (which again is not very feasible because of how broad the scope is) and largely duplicates content from the articles List of people who disappeared mysteriously and List of missing ships (which have a much better, definable scope). The subject is better suited for a category. Category:Unexplained disappearances exists and covers the subject adequately.

Note: The article was originally called "Paranormal vanishing" and nominated for deletion in 2006; the result was no consensus, but the discussion focused on the title/subject "paranormal vanishing". The page was moved to the current title without much discussion, but edited to reflect the new title/subject. AHeneen (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The assertion that this can't be done is belied by the plain fact that we have a reasonable page already. The notability of the topic is confirmed by the existence of entire books about it such as The Disappeared, Greatest Mysteries of the Unexplained, Among the Missing, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if there can be a category, I don't see why there can't be a list. Siuenti (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point which is confirmed by our guideline WP:NOTDUP, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided". Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But in the nomination, I was not implying that the article should be deleted because the category exists, although I now see how it could be interpreted as such. Rather, I was stating that the subject is best suited to be a category (and not an article) and pointed out that the category exists already. The subject is too broad and there isn't much that can be said about the subject beyond a definition. The subject is therefore best suited to being a stand-alone list (and is currently written like a list), but is still too broad and therefore fails WP:STANDALONE. Therefore the only appropriate way for WP to treat this subject is as a category. AHeneen (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of a coherent topic, and because we already have List of people who disappeared mysteriously. This purported article is not a treatment of any single phenomenon, but a haphazard list of unrelated events (and faeries). The fact that the popular press issues books full of these curiosities is not a convincing argument to do the same here. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 00:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a distinct topic deserving its own article, and largely duplicates other things. All but one of the individuals mentioned appears in the more comprehensive List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Apart from that we have Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (which is more than adequately covered in its own article), a section about a couple of hoax 'disappearances' and something on fairies. Neiltonks (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I wouldn't argue keep until this was tightened enough to fill a niche not already served. 'List of hoaxed disappearances', 'List of paranormal entities blamed for disappearances', 'List of folkloric disappearances' - I would be totally down for including those lists and I think they'd be great. As it stands, this is just needless repetition, with the subjects having much better coverage elsewhere. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with careful editing. Most of this article is an incomplete rehash of List of people who disappeared mysteriously, so I support the deletion of sections 1-17. However, other material could be moved: information and citations from the Folklore section belong in the Fairy article, and the Hoaxes info about David Lang and Oliver Larch could cut down and added to the List of hoaxes. I would hate to lose those little bits of WP content by simply deleting this article. Molly-in-md (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment another thing I don't get is why someone searching for "unexplained disappearances" shouldn't get any help finding the kind of articles linked by this page. Siuenti (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, as the two articles are of very similar topics. Tavix |  Talk  20:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The topic is notable, but this article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of topics, many without sources. It's perhaps best to WP:BLOWITUP and start over with a coherent article.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fortean POV fork of List of people who disappeared mysteriously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 22 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. There has been no evidence provided to show that this school actually exists... "appearing to exist" does not fulfill the requirements for articles on secondary schools.. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Abhay Vidhya Mandir, Hindaun city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: This school is not notable and no credible information available on Google search as well. There are mentions "here and there" but nothing credible. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was deleted earlier (was under slightly different name). Check this. Creator of this article is a habitual offender. FYI. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sources at all, no claims of notability. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -I'm seeing absolute zero independent, reliable sources, otherwise could have !voted keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per longstanding consensus and precedent. Certainly appears to exist and that's all that's required for a secondary school article. It was previously deleted after a prod with no discussion involved, so that's irrelevant. I'm also curious as to what the nominator means by saying the page creator is a "habitual offender". Would you care to elaborate? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: -I would like to see a single reliable source that proves the existence of the school. Can you provide one, either here or in the article? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources, while certainly not good, are sufficient to prove it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no reason to believe this school exists. Jacona (talk) 15:00, 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 Speedy Delete by Jimfbleak per WP:G11 and WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charak Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources whatsoever, not asserted notability. The references used are simply company listings, and don't actually evidence notability. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 12:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete This should never have, IMO, passed AfC. The tone is overly promotional, the 'sourcing' is very poor, and (very signifigantly) it has substantial material copied directly from here. While it's 'plausible' that an acceptable article could be written about this company, given it's age, this is not it, not at all. This is very close to being a copyvio speedy, if not actually over the line. WP:TNT applies. Revent^talk 12:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. I think its not exactly like that, may be user have taken reference of the above linked material for the lay out/grammatical tone. I will give my opinion only after through inspection and verification. -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahensingha: The 3rd, 4th, and 5th sentences of the lead are verbatim except for changing 'the company' to 'their'. The list of countries they have manufacturing locatins in is exactly the same, including the words 'and many more' at the end. [15] shows that the 'list of features' is a 61 word direct copy. Yes, it's like that. Revent^talk 19:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting myself) Where I said 'manufacturing locations' I should have said 'products available'. Was tabbing back and forth at the time. Revent^talk 19:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am really shocked to see all this. Thanks for your good vision Dear Revent.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 19:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as blatant advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -G11 and G12. It is an WP:ADVERTISEMENT that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I had in mind to move it back to draft space, but since it does appear to be a blatant advertisement and some copyvio, a start from scratch would be more appropriate. @Mahensingha: -I will strongly suggest you to take a break from AfC project and spend some time to learn basic Wikipedia's guidelines, core-content policies and AfC reviewing instruction. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anupmehra, Thanks for the suggestion. I will surely apply it.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 11:08, 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 09:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akilam two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Though this is a Book of a scripture Akilattirattu Ammanai, independent notability of the book is questionable. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As with Akilam one if the references listed at the end of the article are in line with criteria no.3 of WP:NB - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. - better if the refs are incorporated into the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 22 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! 09:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akilam one (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Though this is a Book of a scripture Akilattirattu Ammanai, independent notability of the book is questionable. Unreferenced since 2007. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the references listed at the end of the article are in line with criteria no.3 of WP:NB - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. - better if the refs are incorporated into the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 22 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. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wassim Aouadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article is basically a resume/diary of a blogger/engineer. Fails WP:BIO. Sckolar (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A man with a job who also uses social media. No evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO no encyclopedic notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 05:06, 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 02:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qlarivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Fails WP:PRODUCT Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: sources are affiliated or don't concern the primary topic. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:08, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Fails WP:PRODUCT Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An unreferenced article for a term which appears to have been used in conversation by the WP:SPA article creator. His claimed precedence is dubious, given this. There are other uses of the term, but as it stands this is essentially trivial, dubious and unreferenced. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whatsapp is notable, but this neologism of an alternate name is not. Only Urban Dictionary entry (linked above). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:A11, no credible claim of significance. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: neologism with nothing to substantiate that it has seen any widespread use. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamaphobia in Twitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Article is on non-event and might not be credible. I am not sure which category to put this under and hence marked it as "Debate not yet sorted". Kindly review. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Split of Islamophobia with potential WP:POV and WP:BLP issues. The only RS used by The Independent, on Twitter (and Facebook) not deleting those tweets(/statuses) is already applied to Islamophobia#Organisations. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's the internet, people say stupid crap all the time, so this is not article-worthy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:58, 20 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.