The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Blaster Roar[edit]

Sound Blaster Roar (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 article is about a portable Bluetooth speaker made by Creative Technology. There is no claim to notability, none of the references, either in the article, nor that I can independently find, support any notability.

Article was created by WP:SPA editor Dinopkk (talk · contribs), whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to the article Creative Technology and articles on its products. I suspect a WP:COI and have warned the editor.

I PRODded the article with the concern "Just another speaker; no claim to notability." It was dePRODded (as a "minor edit"!) with no explanation by the creating editor an hour later. Another editor HaeB (talk · contribs) tagged it for notability. Again, the creating editor removed the tag as a minor edit without explanation.

It seems to me to be just another computer speaker. Probably a pretty good one, but not notable, and the article appears to be part of a promotional campaign for Creative Technology using Wikipedia.

Note, I plan to AFD Sound BlasterAxx for similar reasons. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound BlasterAxx, just opened. TJRC (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails WP:PRODUCT. Redirect both to Creative_Technology#Other_products. Please bundle the other AfD into this one rather than making two separates. Pax 00:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfDs is the appropriate way to handle it. Multiple-article AfDs are rarely helpful.

The link you provide is advice on what to do when a product is not notable, not a guide to determine if a product is notable. Please provide an actual rationale as to why you feel this product is not-notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in comment below. Pax 20:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Strong keep - tons and tons of professional reviews and other reliable source coverage exist, meeting the GNG by a mile. Spending two seconds on Google news will establish that: [1]. A COI (even if proven) is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is there anythign wrong with the article creator removing a PROD tag. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I gonna go with ThaddeusB on this. For example: this review from PC Magazine, this review from TechRadar, and this review from Paste. There are more available on a Google search. I'm sensitive to spam, COI editing, and such, but this is a legitimate topic. If necessary, we can rewrite it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: All the keep votes so far reference reviews, but WP:Routine reviews do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Pax 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, product reviews are exactly how you establish notability of a product. Routine coverage includes product announcements, but professional reviews are not in any way routine. The vast majority of products never received one, for example. If you are going to quote a guideline, at least bother to read it - neither link you gave lists product reviews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, where does it specifically say that about reviews in the notability rules? If a restaurant can't be notable from a review per WP:Corpdepth, how does one of its dishes (i.e., their product) become notable via a review? (It sounds to me like the wording of Corpdepth should be changed, as right now an apparent contradiction exists). Pax 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant rule is silly (and probably does not reflect actual consensus), but regardless this isn't a restaurant. If the rule was meant to apply to all reviews, is wouldn't specify restaurants specifically. If a type of coverage isn't excluded, then obviously it qualifies as valid under the general notability guidelines --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at cloned AfD; I recommend the closer deal with them as if they were a bundled AfD Pax 20:42, 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. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Adam[edit]

Vasile Adam (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)

The first AfD was a dud. I'm not surprised no one cares about a random Moldovan woodcarver, but who knows, maybe we'll get a couple of votes and achieve consensus this time around. My reasons for deletion have previously been outlined, and I don't have anything in particular to add. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article needs improvement, but local RS exists (although finding them from an English-speaking vantage-point is a tedious hunt through Google-translate), even international interest. Given subject's long (30 years) and talented career, I recommend !voters be mindful of geographical/language bias. Pax 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pointed out before, and I will point out again: that article is by Andrian Adam, probably a relative of Vasile Adam and definitely the author of this article. Also, he was a mere intern when he wrote the article, which, additionally, is not quite neutral. Even if you consider none of this matters, WP:BASIC does require multiple published secondary sources — i.e., more than one.
  • As for this: it's not quotable. The fact that a foreign arts portal features a couple of Adam's works is nice, but there's no way of working that into an article, and therefore it's rather irrelevant.
  • So, yes, systemic bias, but just because a subject comes from a country that falls on the wrong side of the systemic bias divide does not mean he's exempted from relevant policies – in this case, WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. I look forward to more concrete evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As stated above, article needs improvement but the subject seems to meet notability requirements. I suggest adding more references to the article even if they are foreign-language references.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SouthernNights, those references would be in Romanian, a language I know; I've searched in Romanian, exhaustively, and the only remotely quotable source is the Timpul article, which, as I've thoroughly explained above, represents a classic conflict of interest. It's a puff piece written by one Andrian Adam, very likely a relative and an intern at the paper, who then (under the user name Andrian Adam) wrote this article and used his published article as the main reference. Doesn't that seem just a bit, well, irregular? And as I've also noted, WP:BASIC requires "multiple published secondary sources.... independent of the subject". Even if the Timpul article were "independent of the subject" (it's not), it's the only quotable source. The "multiple sources" part isn't fulfilled, and can't be, as far as I can tell. The article cannot undergo "improvement" because "more references" do not exist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In my oppinion WP:GNG is met: [This article] and [this article] are both WP:RS both treat the subject in depth and both should be considered independent of the subject, since they are both reliable sources and have editorial control. When in doubt the balance should tip to the keep.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:14, 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) 03:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New atheism and Islamophobia[edit]

New atheism and Islamophobia (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 was prodded for deletion as a non-encyclopedic essay, but the prod was removed by the article creator. I think the original reason for deletion stands. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, There are many comparison of religious positions on wikipedia. This happens to be a much talked about component of the relationship between Islam and atheism. Round here yeah (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing nothing in this article that would not fit into New Atheism. Why does this topic deserve a dedicated article? (By the way, if you want the article to be kept, your vote should read "keep", rather than "oppose"; I assume the admin who closes the debate will read it as keep, but its still better to use the accepted terminology). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Transparent WP:COATRACK. Not seeing a real rationale for a redirect given unlikelihood of this exact phrase ever being used as a search term. Pax 01:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Other articles of this type exist, for example: Christianity and antisemitism. However, those articles have lots of instances of attacks on one religion by members of another, where a this article is just synthesising a theory out of a few accusatory articles in the media.  Liam987(talk) 03:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In theory, an article could be created, but this synthesis is not it. I'm not sure if it's so bad as to be deleted or just userfied or redirected for more work. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are plenty of sources for the article, there is no danger of SYNTH taking place. The topic is covered by reliable third party sources. Searches showed the following results for New Atheism and Islamophobia:

• News with 4500 results[2]
• Books with 627 results[3]
• G.scholar with 2350 results[4]

Note added later; this is just one article from the independent[5] which directly speaks about new atheism and islamophobia in detail. There is significant coverage of this topic in secondary sources who are independent of the subject. The article meets the general notability guidelines so is WP:GNG compliant.

18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Mbcap (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, collection of different sources, some of lesser quality, inappropriately making broader claims (such as opinion texts discussing Sam Harris linked to whole "New atheism". The best sources could be used, and are used, in New atheism's criticism section. There's simply not enough for a whole article. --Pudeo' 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with this article is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK based on a couple of opinion articles. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:04, 24 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) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitbusters[edit]

Hitbusters (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)

Dance Now 2003 (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 albums. Fail both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just about to nominate this one myself. Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just because it includes popular songs not created by the creator of the album doesn't necessarily mean it meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Searching "hitbusters" on Google's news search engine comes up with an unrelated result. Esquivalience ^t 02:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability indicated. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 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) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Attack. Various Artists[edit]

Chart Attack. Various Artists (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 album. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Zero notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Unofficial Guides to Medicine[edit]

The Unofficial Guides to Medicine (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)

Well sourced, this reads as an essay and an advocation rather then an encyclopedia article. Casically a part of What wiki is not and will take a fundamental rewrite and a scrutiny of sources. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Pax 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Eiron (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertisement masquerading as an article. BakerStMD T|C 14:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:ARTSPAM. How considerate of the article, it even gives us two links in the references section to the amazon pages from where we can buy the book from. Mbcap (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice against recreation as a proper article - there is some possibility of notability (several of the books have been reviewed in academic journals), but there isn't really much usable text here - it is mostly an essay on why someone should read (or buy) the books. Better to start over I think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Mr. Guye: who accepted this at AfC in case he wants to clean it up & save it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate again Yikes. This is bad. I suppose I did not look through it as much as I should have. Perhaps I was thrown off by something. Still, as ThaddeusB has said, it may be notable. Let's send it back to draftspace so it can be fixed up, especially by ZeshanQureshi, who has yet to comment here. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly have no objection to returning it to draft space if there is a willingness to work on it (which per below, does seem to be the case). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the helpful feedback, and take all of the comments very seriously. I appreciate your patience, and as it sounds like you have deduced, my background is academic writing (as a doctor), rather than encyclopedia entry, and its seems as though i have fallen into the trap of doing things in a way i am used to. I have already added significantly to the article based on feedback. I have tried to make it more balanced, and have included more criticism about the publishing group. I have set aside time every day this week to work on it further however necessary, as i believe that wikipedia's strength comes from its strict standards. Cant emphasise again how great it is to have so much feedback to take on, and look forward to further comments. ZeshanQureshi

And thank you for being civil and assuming good faith. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have seldom seen a statement like that at an AFD. Kudos. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pretty much piling on. This article is a pretty blatant advertisement. I must concur with those above this article should be deleted per WP:ADMASQ. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:02, 24 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) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way of Infinite Harmony[edit]

Way of Infinite Harmony (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 is a topic with no significant coverage and notability as established by independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Cold Season (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magu (deity); existing name is WP:ADMASQy reference to book title for sale on Amazon; that exact phrase does not appear notable otherwise. Pax 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the term seems to be only used in a non-notable recent book. -Zanhe (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 666bet. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metroplay[edit]

Metroplay (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)

Company is not notable, a subsidiary of a larger company with no significant press. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 666bet, as this title is now merely a brand-front. (Then again, that article appears to share the same notability problems, and tossing both could be in store.) Pax 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 666bet - the coverage I found all seems to cover this company in the context of its sale to 666bet. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 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) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hill (record producer)[edit]

John Hill (record producer) (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)

Notability questionable. Almost all links are promotional, as discussed on WP:COIN. Per WP:MUSIC, not notable. If he'd actually won a GRAMMY, instead of just being nominated... (rationale borrowed from the earlier PROD nomination by Nagle; PROD was removed by one of the COI IPs) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability questionable as per above, and also nothing substantive in the article beyond a list of records produced 79616gr (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having read Binksternet's references he does seem to qualify per Wikipedia:Notability (music). 79616gr (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No major awards, no major articles, just a long list of products with which he had some association. John Nagle (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The guy is notable even though his agency, the author of this biography, failed to prove it. Per Wikipedia:Notability (music), Hill's biography should be kept because he has been a key part of several hit singles including "Can't Remember to Forget You" and "She Wolf", both of which he co-wrote.[6][7] Below are some references that can be used to expand the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diehl, Matt (April 4, 2013). "Gear: John Hill's Playground of Sound". Billboard.
  • Hoffman, Ken (February 9, 2015). "Houston producer scales Grammy hill". Houston Chronicle.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One WP:MUSICBIO criteria: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." There is little reason not to extend this rationale to record producers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the fact that he has been nominated for a Gramy satisfies criterion #8 of WP:MUSICBIO. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Blood Divine. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Maloney[edit]

Steve Maloney (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)

Longtime unsourced BLP with very little info and looks unotable even. Wgolf (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: provided subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, recommend Redirect to The Blood Divine per WP:CHEAP. Pax 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Blood Divine as the artist is not notable enough to have an article of his own but is notable enough to have a redirect. Lack of any reliable sources (or even a website of his own, mind you) makes it hard to meet WP:GNG. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:56, 24 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) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vizhiyil[edit]

Vizhiyil (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)

unotable music album-with its only ref being on facebook Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Non notable album, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete -Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 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) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alin Popa[edit]

Alin Popa (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)

There's absolutely no indication this individual meets the notability guidelines specified at WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. What we have for "sources" is:

• An interview hosted by a PR agency
• Bare passing mention (as in, part of a cast list) in two newspaper articles
• Another cast list, this time hosted by a theatre that employed the subject
• A blog post
• A LinkedIn profile
• Directory entries: 1, 2, 3, 4

In other words, no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject exists, and we should delete accordingly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no real assertion of notability; his biggest role was Tybalt in a regional stage production of Romeo and Juliet. We are not LinkedIn for actors. This falls way far short of WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 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. The clear policy backed consensus is for this article to be deleted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring Uttam Kumar[edit]

List of songs featuring Uttam Kumar (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)

List of songs featuring someone??? Really? This is going a bit too far Wgolf (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• I think it's misnamed at the very least. From the title (and having no idea who Kumar is), I assumed it would be pop songs in which he was credited as a "featured" recording artist (like "Love the Way You Lie" is credited to "Eminem (feat. Rihanna)"). Instead, it's a list of songs Kumar performed in movies in which he acted. I'm not sure that's similar enough to the other contents of Category:Lists of songs by recording artists. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from this discussion so far, it's a strong delete for me. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -It really is going too far. It doesn't make sense and falls in the line of What Wikipedia is NOT. He is not a "recording artist" but an actor. In Bollywood and each and every other Indian cinema, we have on average 4-5 songs featuring actor and actress for the sake of entertainment. If they are notable for acting in a song or multiple songs in movies, it should go under Career section of their biographical article. The list is relevant for a "recording artist", for an actor, we have "Actor Filmography", what in present case we already have at Uttam Kumar filmography. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep This! This is helpful - I know that it seems quite queer to have a list of songs not sung by any singer, rather performed by an actor. But I don't think it's 100% irrelevant. Because I'm an Indian. Normally, any song's credit directly goes to its composer or singer, but in India there is three such legendary actors (Amitabh Bachchan, Uttam Kumar and Rajnikant) whose songs are mainly attributed to its actors. People often say, its Uttam Kumar's song or its Amitabh Bachchan's song. So, its very reasonable to include songs featuring these actors. Moreover, very few actors have performed 300+ songs like kumar. Besides this, the writer of this article has introduced a new thing to us, a list of songs not sung, rather featuring an actor. It's outstanding, unique and versatile! and the reference really corresponds to the films with detailed track listing as the article has. Mayank Kapadia (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC) User[reply]
  • "...a list of songs not sung, rather featuring an actor." I have no idea what that means. He didn't even sing these songs? Was he merely onscreen when they are performed in these movies? postdlf (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: -Yes, it is merely an onscreen performance by an actor in songs featured in the films they acted into. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayank Kapadia: -Do you have any source that discuss these songs featuring the actor? An actor acts and acting is what relevant to their profession. Similarly, a singer sings, and songs are relevant to their profession. A list of songs featuring a particular actor doesn't make sense. One formal question, are you aware of Wikipedia's notability guideline? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:45, 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) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noa Bursie[edit]

Noa Bursie (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: questionable notability per WP:MUSICIAN. Quis separabit? 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - news searches found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I am willing to change my mind if better sources are located. Sorry she died so young, but I follow blues and folk music in Upstate NY (where I lived for 33 years), and have never heard of her. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 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 Deleted - G5 by TexasAndroid NAC –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad Ki Raaten[edit]

Baghdad Ki Raaten (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)

Unotable film made by a sockpuppet as well. Wgolf (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted - G5 by TexasAndroid NAC –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lima (actress)[edit]

Lima (actress) (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 unotable film actress made by a person who was also previously banned (I have put a csd banned on a few of his articles and a normal prod also) Wgolf (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (creation by a sock of blocked user Sadman Sakibzz: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadman Sakibzz). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah have done a bunch of csds just now-also I just put a csd for , just look at the number of pages to go through for that even! Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leonardo[edit]

Michelle Leonardo (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:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [8] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

--doncram 22:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. NBA.com is hardly anybody's "local paper" and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in May 2012 through the AfC process by User:RRRRRYYYYYAAAAANNNNN who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per request(s), and to avoid confusion, nominator has stopped. The 12 AFDs linked above now are all of them. Each needs to be considered separately. --doncram 22:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How any dancers for the Boston Celtics warrant their own WP article, even if listed on the NBA website? Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo won the Miss New Jersey Teen USA crown in 2008 and Miss New Jersey USA in 2012, both of which are notable statewide pageants with national and international coverage in reliable third-party sources. She's no more simply a Celtics dancer than Paula Abdul is simply a former Lakers dancer. - Dravecky (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show us the WP policy that winning a state pageant is notable. Winning a blue ribbon or a tractor pull at the state fair is just as notable. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this one is different than the others, is NOT created by the one editor whose articles were nominated at AFD in a large group (of which 8 are renominated in links above). This one was created through AFC process, accepted in this version by editor Missvain. No more model AFDs being started by nominator now. This article topic needs to be evaluated on its merits alone. --doncram 22:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell this crap was accepted I'll never know, Anyway I've struck as turns out you're right it appears to have been created by someone not affliated with the contest –Davey2010^Talk 02:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Though created through AFD, it's not notable. EChastain (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.

  Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are either primary and promotional pageant websites, blogsites, casual mentions (such as the Celtics' bulletpoint bio) and one school newspaper. A Highbeam search turns up her only mention in a reliable news source, as part of a photo caption in an AP newswire photo along with several dozen other pageant contestants. Nowhere in Wikipedia notability guidelines is there any presumptive notability for state pageant winners, and so the article has to stand and fall on the GNG, which the subject doesn't meet. Ravenswing 03:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sources such as [9], [10], and [11] are reliable and sufficient to establish (minor) notability. Sufficient other sources (official bios) exist to round out the article (they don't establish notability, but can be used to flesh out non-controversial info). BLP1E clearly does not apply (there are multiple events here) - throwing it out as a delete reason only weakens a delete argument. Pinging @Missvain: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has numerous references to third party reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG as well, the subject has shown notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient references as per WP:RS, not just a beauty contestant but a dancer and she's been in commercials, but much of the unsourced cruft was removed and should not be re-inserted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:TNT. This travesty needs to be re-written from scratch. Pax 21:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rewritten from scratch or do you think it needs another rewrite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources seem sufficient. Artw (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple citations in reliable, third-party sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Past: A Compilation[edit]

Lord of the Past: A Compilation (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)

PROD removed because "compilation albums are routinely listed on WP". I can't find the policy WP:ROUTINELYLISTED but I can find WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:V and WP:RS (both absent from this article) and no actual policy that mandates including every album ever released by anybody who makes the inclusion threshold, however narrowly. The sole source here is editable by artists and their PR, it is not a source that provides evidence of significance, only one where absence is strong evidence of the opposite. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point number 2 in WP:NALBUM says, "2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." Thus, Lord of the Past: A Compilation qualifies to be kept; as the references in the article note. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that sources exist to meet WP:NALBUMS. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any sources other than trivial mentions. Fails WP:NALBUM.- MrX 03:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added two more references to the article in support of prominence. Note, I do not understand the original argument posed that WP is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" when this is part of a prominent musical artist's catalog of work. Just because one release in an artist's career is not as prominently lauded as another does not seem to me to be a reason to erase that part of the artist's career from WP. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See additional comment in the introductory paragraph. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep Not enough coverage to meet requirements of WP:NALBUM to establish its own notability. The artists notability does not pass to the album per WP:NOTINHERITED. JBH (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Making a national chart passes WP:NALBUM. JBH (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to consider recent article changes/references additions by Crath. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 9 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) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia Anghelescu[edit]

Giulia Anghelescu (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)

We need some sort of references establishing this individual's notability, as defined by WP:NMUSIC, and no, an article announcing that she's delivered a baby girl doesn't help in that regard. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Mister Biruitorul, can you read English? Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles and read carefully! This singer passes at least 4 of these criteria. Your userpage tells that you're native speaker of Romanian. I doubt. Because in this case you could read just some pages of those 125.000 web pages available on internet in which Giulia is mentioned to find her notability. I noticed you are obsessed with deletion of Romania-related articles. Better propose right now deletion of articles Bucharest and Romania and don't play with small preys. I suggest you to check New Pages Feed where you can see hundreds and thousands of stuby articles abouts non-notable musical albums, some 'anonymous' artists, unknown authors, various non-notable sport clubs and teams. This article, is not a real candidate for deletion, it's candidate for improvement. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of any biography has to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Verbiage aside, please adduce some specific examples of significant coverage if you want the article kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Unless this article is a hoax, there is no way this person is not well-known in Romania, with language barriers (and potential mispellings) presenting the primary sourcing difficulty. Pax 06:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so she's notable because a Wikipedia editor who has no idea about WP:CS, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and so forth made unverifiable claims about her. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, and I suggest you review the relevant policies more clearly before casting such irresponsible votes. We need sources backing up assertions of notability, and we currently have none. If sources attesting notability emerge, great. If not, we are under no obligation to lend credence to the article text. (WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.".) In fact, per WP:BLP, we should be especially wary of doing so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: failed WP:BEFORE, clearly a celebrity, she regularly receives tons of coverage in Romanian newspapers, magazines and other news sources: eg, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], there are dozens of pages about her on Google News. And I just checked for "Giulia Anghelescu", not for "Giulia" which is her stage name. She appears to be some sort of local Rihanna and she apparently receives news coverage on daily basis, I can't see how a Romanian-born editor could fail to see that in their WP:BEFORE. Article is in bad shape, but AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 07:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's take a closer look at these sources you've brought in.
• This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this is blatant tabloid trash. We're an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag, and as a matter of course, we simply don't cite publications of that sort. Besides, the content of the linked articles is largely (if not entirely) trivial and unquotable.
• As for the rest, it ranges from barely acceptable to respectable newspapers, but let's see what they say; let's look at the headlines.
  • Breaking news! Giulia Anghelescu is pregnant!
  • You weren't expecting this! The real reason why Giulia Anghelescu is NOT divorcing Vlad Huidu!
  • Giulia loses 18 kg by eating cherry stems
  • How Giulia Anghelescu lost 18 kg after giving birth without dieting
  • Giulia, adored by Romania's gay community
  • Terrible news for Giulia. Almost 8 months pregnant, the singer finds out she has complications
  • Giulia, on the Candy period, DJ Project, her showbiz friends and her secret dream
  • Giulia Anghelescu visits 'Splash! Stars in the water', at the request of her husband, Vlad Huidu
  • Giulia, pregnant for the second time! See what she looks like
  • Giulia gives birth. 'I'm the happiest mommy'
• Must I say more? All this, too, is trivia, all of it tabloid junk that made its way into relatively decent papers, none of it actually evidence of any sort of encyclopedic notability, none of it in the least quotable. If you have some kind of usable sources, do let us know. If you have some sourced evidence the subject might meet not just WP:MUSICBIO point 1, but any of points 2 through 12, again, let us know. Until then, however, not a shred of real evidence exists as to the subject's notability, as defined by the relevant policies; consequently, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for traslating titles, yet I have to disagree with your analysis: she's an entertainer, I don't expect to see her as the subject of economics or political articles. As pointed above, I just randomly choose a few of the hundreds of articles available on her, and still most of them are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the fact that reputable (or decent, as you prefer) newspapers and media sources regularly inform their readers about the subject's pregnancies, marriages, television appearences and similar stuff is evidence that an entertainer's career is notable. About MUSICBIO, she maybe meets it, probably fails it, I have not analyzed it but GNG generally trumps SNGs, so my vote remains. Cavarrone 19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No, she wouldn't appear in the business or politics sections, but there should be some kind of significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The way I understand that, because this is how biographies work in practice, is some kind of basic overview of her life/career. Not just trivial mentions about her pregnancy issues, in other words, but some sort of framework source telling us why she's famous.
    • (For instance, in the case of another Romanian singer, Alexandra Stan, we have several of those: [38], [39], [40], [41], plus major award confirmation. That simply doesn't exist, as far as I can see, for Anghelescu.)
    • So, to reiterate, I would be interested in seeing significant coverage of the individual, as opposed to her trivial actions, and that remains to be seen, although we will probably have to agree to disagree. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, significant coverage is not necessarely supposed to be an overview of the career of a subject (while I LOVE when I find such kind of sources), and our guidelines currently do not support such interpretation. I fail to see how articles entitled to the subject, and which enterely focus on the subject are not significant coverage, or do not address the topic directly. About the examples, the Alexandra Stan sources (which except one did not really impressed me) are not so different from articles such as [42], [43], [44], [45] or [46]. Note, I am not claiming Anghelescu's notability is well-deserved, it is not my duty to judge, I am just observing she is certainly considered a major celebrity by the press in terms of attention and coverage. Whether she is a new Madonna or just some local Kim Kardashian (someone famous for being famous), that's ultimately a secondary issue. And about "trivial actions", when the press uses to record every minimal action of a subject, it happens because they consider that subject very notable (that's a side effect of notability, particularly in the entertainment field). Cavarrone 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Biruitorul, I think you just don't want to accept any argument attempting to gain deletion of this article to satisfy your craving. Between 2009-2011 Giulia was member of project "DJ Project". In 2010 along the rest of group she won Romanian Music Awards for BEST GROUP [47]. She has a lot of songs in top of Romanian Charts (for several weeks/months consecutively). If you can't check this, ask someone to help you. Also, this singer has been in rotation nationally on radio channels of Romania. You don't like some tabloids, but they just confirms its notability. As soon as Giulia became pregnant, mass-media of Romania wrote on her (on fact of her pregnancy). As soon she give birth to child, immediately she received a lot of coverage in media. Besides of this, you can find published materials about Giulia on all major Romanian media resources. You must understand that you have no chance to contest notability of this person. More than this, not only Giulia is notable, but also she has ~5 notable albums and singles. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If you're generating Kim Kardashian levels of trashy headlines, you're notable. At some massive amount, quantity does matter as much as quality. Pax 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: She has released several albums throughout her career. Some of them are with ro:Cat Music, a record label that's been around since 1997 (that is, more than half of the post-communist time of her country, the only time when the market was not under the monopoly of the state-owned Electrecord), which means it might be qualified as a "(an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)", as per criterion 5 from WP:BAND. The other one, Hahaha Production, is relatively new, and possibly could not be considered as such, but I think the tabloid noise about her comes from a real notability whose evidence are her albums released with Cat Music. That is what the article should focus on.- Andrei (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Efteling. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Hearts[edit]

Court of Hearts (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)

unbuild ride with an unclear future. By now nothing more than a crystal bol with a permit-application. The Banner talk 13:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An encyclopedia does not predict the future. Wait until the ride is finished and in operation and gets some press. WP:CRYSTAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Efteling for now. When the ride opens and gets coverage, the redirect can be expanded back to an article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above (and, when built, unless someone gets killed on the thing, it probably won't possess sufficient stand-alone notability regardless). Pax 01:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with all of the above; I think WP:HAMMER is also helpful by way of analogy. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of French Guiana[edit]

Foreign relations of French Guiana (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)

French Guiana has no international relations. Unlike, for example, the British Virgin Islands, which has its own foreign relations page, French Guiana is not autonomous from France and therefore has no foreign relations, just as Île de France has none. There is no foreign relations of Hawaii page; why should there be one for French Guiana? Furthermore, the page is nearly empty.  Liam987(talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have listed other articles of this type at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands per suggestion below.  Liam987(talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  01:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be a series of articles by User:Conversion script (which apparently was a bot and apparently has been blocked) with the same jumpy style of text. Anyway, France handles all foreign relations for French Guiana. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into Conversion script, it seems it was a bot that updated articles to a new Wikicode version in 2002, so presumably this article existed before then and the previous revisions were lost in the conversion.  Liam987(talk) 02:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nom may wish to cruise the associated categories and bundle several more likely candidates into this or another AfD. Pax 01:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete French Guiana is not a sovereign country, therefore its foreign relations are controlled by France. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands. The only important information in this article is already covered in articles such as Borders of Suriname and Foreign relations of Suriname and I don't there is enough here for a France–Suriname relations article. Tavix |  Talk  20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, FG is not managing international relations on its own. Rather articles of Franco-Surinamese relations should be created. Whilst on topic, I tried to highlight this problematic back in 2010, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_20#Category:Brazil.E2.80.93French_Guiana_border --Soman (talk) 07:17, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engino[edit]

Engino (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:ORG. All Google search came with advertising results. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pretty blatant promotion. Deb (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and spam-tagged for Speedy. Pax 01:55, 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 deleted by User:Deb per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 16:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mehroz Saqib[edit]

Mohammad Mehroz Saqib (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: Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete spam autobio by a completely non-notable student, with ridiculous boasts about being a sports and music star with legions of female fans. He's posted on the article talk page that he wants to be famous [48]. Previously speedied as Mohammad Mehroz Khan. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:07, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forex Heatmap[edit]

The Forex Heatmap (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)

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Has involvement from paid/sock editors. Undisclosed paid editing was commissioned on f****r.com website. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:ADMASQ. (Recommend term "forex heatmap" - without "The " - be redirected to heat map.) Pax 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete twofold (and 2nd time). 1. undisclosed paid editor against TOU 2. 0 or 1 RS fails GNG Widefox; talk 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I will stay out of the !vote for this nomination. However, I will point out that User talk:Karlhard#Furvah post on his talk is not conclusive evidence of him being a paid editor. In fact, two details of the post itself point to the contrary: 1) the fact that Furvah contacted him on his talk and 2) they left an email address. The question to ask is, if they've been in contact before outside of Wiki, why not use their original channel of communication and use his talk instead? And Furvah seems to think Karlhard does not have their email address... which is further support that they have not spoken prior to Furvah's post. In short, I think Karlhard had no idea that Furvah would offer money. The fact that Karlhard has edited a very large number of article of no commercial value also supports this hypothesis. Also note Karlhard's userpage which states he is rich. Granted self-description is nothing, but the evidence as a whole is overwhelming. —CodeHydro 23:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karlhard claims not to know them [49]. I'm assuming good faith of the subject/client ... 1) understandably clients don't know how WP works else they would edit themselves, and part of that is they are likely to not know undisclosed paid editing is against the TOU (and/or that the editor hasn't disclosed), and their username isn't allowed. There's nothing wrong with paying editors (according to the rules), their edit seems quite innocent, naive even. 2) My reading of the message is that something's gone wrong with the off-wiki channel forcing on-wiki for whatever reason that is (stale job?/lost details/closed account/not responding) 3) How would the subject know this was being created in draft space unless there's been some previous off-wiki coordination? It isn't possible to AGF for both, as we see communication proof of the relationship between the two parties.
  • In isolation it's a bizarre message. In fact, due to 1) I've seen this sort of message before. 4) there's edit overlap with other undisclosed paid editors e.g. User:Emilysantoss, and 5) creation of promo articles. 1-5 is strong. Widefox; talk 00:51, 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. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Key4ce[edit]

Key4ce (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:GNG, WP:SPAM, WP:RS and WP:CORP. None of the listed references are reliable secondary sources. They are press releases, marketing claims, and advertising sites. Appears to be written by their marketing department. It's an advertisement pretending to be a encyclopedic article. - Becksguy (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparently, I agree with you, because I tagged it as non-notable back in December 2014. Looking through Google, I don't see any reliable sources. Maybe I was going to nominate it for deletion and forgot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not seeing a lot of coverage. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 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! 13:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brahm Yadav[edit]

Brahm Yadav (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)

The principal claim of notability of the subject of this article is that he is leader of the Indian National Congress, which is demonstrably not the case and some or all of the article is apparrently a WP:HOAX. This article suggests someone of this name does exist as a political candidate but there is no evidence he meets the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -I don't see any Hoax thing on there. If you see any, please edit that out. Subject may meet GNG and POLITICIAN #3 inclusion criteria. Sources, -[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], more. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardOSmith: -Just edited the article a little and added some reliable sources, please take a look and re-assess the article (I hope nomination concerns has been addressed). If you see any problem, please point them out here. If not, please withdraw your nomination. Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the article. However, the worst of it - the claim that he is "leader of the Indian National Congress" - was left in place and the ((cn)) tag removed from it. If that claim were true then of course he would be notable (and there would be a heck of a lot more third party coverage about him), but it isn't because the leader of the INC is Sonia Gandhi (See President of the Indian National Congress). We need to establish not whether the subject may meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN but whether they actually do. WP:POLITICIAN is, I think, easily dealt with: he is an unelected candidate with apparently no "international, national or sub-national office" so I don't believe that any of the specific requirements are met, which leaves only the GNG. Of the five references you cited above, three are about his candidature in a forthcoming election and as that is not notable per WP:POLITICIAN then the coverage is run of the mill and also non-notable. The remaining two are sound-bites about onion prices rather than significant coverage of the man so, again, suggest no notability to me. The remaining claim of notability in the article is that he has held posts within two agricultural marketing boards but as the boards themselves don't appear to be notable then I don't believe the posts held are either. So I see no evidence that inclusion guidelines are met. I am naturally inclined towards inclusion and would have felt no imperative to nominate were it not for the blatant untruth in the first sentence about being leader of the INC. That calls into question the reliability of the entire article and, to a lesser extent, whether it is merely a promotional piece created at the time of an election. Wikipedia is not a repository of everything and bad data is worse than no data at all. Therefore I still believe this article should be deleted. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh!! Do you happen to ever read the WP:POLITICIAN guideline? -See #3. Runofthemill is irrelevant here. He contented the election in 1998 and again in 2015 and have headed the multiple State Government bodies and have received multiple independent coverage for. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article meets the general notability guidelines and Politicians. Hoax contents/ references can be removed. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 09:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help me understand your rationale - and potentially sway my opinion - if you could state the reasons you think the notability guidelines are met. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have removed the claim that he is leader of the Indian National Congress from the article. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have instead fix it. I made it, "member of the Indian National Congress". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 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 delete. Hoax. Favonian (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Abdinado[edit]

John Abdinado (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 is an unusual situation. The article claims that Abdinado played for the Yankees for two years, so there should be some results on Google or Google books for him. In fact, though, there are no Google results beyond Wikipedia mirrors and no Google Books results at all. The only citation in the article is to another Wikipedia article that does not provide a source for Abdinado having played for the Yankees. This may be a hoax, but even if it is not it fails WP:V. Everymorning talk 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probable hoax. Sabermetricians are nothing if not thorough, and the idea that someone could have played for two years with the Yankees without any web presence whatsoever strains credulity. As an administrative matter, I further suggest that JaneHorn67 (the editor who created this article) and Rondo222 (the editor who added this individual to the New York Yankees all-time roster) are related. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:36, 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 Procedural Close. Speedy deleted (CSD A7). Non-admin close - Becksguy (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amjed raza badgami[edit]

Amjed raza badgami (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) 12:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engr. Babar Abbas[edit]

Engr. Babar Abbas (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) 11:59, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuse (band)[edit]

Fuse (band) (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)

Doesn't appear to satisfy the WP:NBAND notability criteria. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert "Stewkey" Antoni. Squinge (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. References in the article are unconvincing. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:MUSBIO, where #6 reads "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (members in this band included Rick Nielsen, Tom Petersson, Thom Mooney, Robert "Stewkey" Antoni, and Bun E. Carlos). At the very least, Fuse also historically relevant as an early form of Cheap Trick. Earflaps (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Mooney and Antoni are currently at AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that there seems to be a bit of circular reasoning amongst these articles. The band is notable for having notable musicians in it, and these notable musicians are notable for being in the notable band. Also, is Fuse (band) a distinctly separate band from Nazz? At Fuse (band) it says the band played "under two monikers, Fuse or Nazz, depending on where they were gigging". It all seems a bit marginal to me. Squinge (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, I missed that fact. I change my vote to Redirect to Nazz. Earflaps (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote again, back to Keep, per this further explanation on the Nazz page:

Stewkey and Mooney later reconnected and played with Fuse for a brief period using two monikers, Fuse or Nazz, depending on where they were gigging. Mooney would leave again, and Fuse evolved into "Sick Man of Europe", and later (without Stewkey) Cheap Trick.[1][2]

Even if the two members listed for afd are deleted, there are still enough other notable members for MUSICBIO #6 to be perfectly valid. Earflaps (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VDJ Rahat[edit]

VDJ Rahat (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)

Reason: No significant works. No significant coverage except trivial mentions in the included sources. fails WP:GNG Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the current title is a result of an accidental page move that should be reverted if the article is to be kept; it's "DJ Rahat", not "VDJ Rahat". Huon (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - yes. I am agree with Huon. The article can be considered to be keep. The person seems to be a real musician in his country and for changing the name someone can't find the exact thing in any mentioned source. So I think we can keep this article for further improvement with the old original name "DJ Rahat". Shaharia.azam (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete name issue aside, the coverage is pretty weak otherwise, at least in English language sources. More sourcing and/or chart positions would be helpful to establish notability, otherwise I would lean toward delete weakly, as there is some coverage, I'm just not sure it rises to meet the standards. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I moved the page to DJ Rahat. DJ Rahat is a popular artist with several major albums. Despite this, he is not covered much in (English) traditional media; but there are some in Bengali. – nafSadh did say 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 13:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia McConnell[edit]

Patricia McConnell (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)

WithdrawnUnsourced hagiographic BLP created by a COI editor acting under the instruction of the subject, per this Help desk post Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Even though "AFD is not cleanup", cleanup has nevertheless been done resulting in a marginally acceptable stub. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that the "Find Sources: Book" above (When altered to Patricia B. McConnell) gives over 2,000 hits, I'd say there is room for a Patricia McConnell article, but of course it may not be this one.Naraht (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's why I nominated it, the page needs WP:TNT or a return to draft/sandbox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "return to draft/sandbox" is an option. It wasn't entirely created by the COI, just greatly expanded. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patricia_McConnell&oldid=557496685 is more or less your every day article in need of external references.Naraht (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, reverting and tagging for fixes is probably the better option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a "repair" has been attempted but the result is still not an acceptable article, the only reasonable remaining option is to delete it. (Note: I am the nominator so this should not be regarded as an additional !vote.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Highly promotional, no acceptable references. If the subject is notable, a proper article should be written - this one just gets in the way of that. Maproom (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hate to do this to a fellow Wisconsinite, but, Delete without prejudice. A proper article may be possible; this ain't it. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume that the nominator's link to this Help desk post was intended to be to this Help desk post? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG Subject is notable enough in spite of the painful article. If the article is kept this awful draft stays in edit history, but the person is notable. Can we just make it a stub and keep that? It seems wrong, this article, that it is so badly written, but I don't think we should delete notable topics, OTOH I do not want to be the one voting to keep this. . MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Also, her h-index is not enough for WP:PROF, and I see no evidence that the book is notable. -- 120.23.76.162 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Which on of her books is the one you refer to as "the book"? Most of the books listed are published by the subject's own company. Aiui an "adjunct professor" is a fairly junior lecturer position, so doesn't pass WP:PROF. Depending on the notability of the awards she has received they might be sufficient, but most are unsourced in this article. I still think deletion is the best option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pure promo and books appear to be self-published. Agree that WP:TNT applies. Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: I trimmed the hagiography and added some references. It's now short, and dependent upon her faculty bio page at the university, but that's true of many academic bio articles. It's still a poor article, but I don't think there's any need to delete it. TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TheMightyQuill did a nice cleanup of the promo material and as a number of commenters above have noted she is notable for her books and radio program. I added a couple refs, one to a journal article by her and one to a Knight-Ridder piece about her book: The Other End of the Leash. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nice clean-up job. Pax 07:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent work in making a decent article of it. Notable, tho not a an academic. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 23 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 - deleted as G11 by Jimfbleak. Closure justified under WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resh Marhatta[edit]

Resh Marhatta (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:FILMBIO and not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Article apparently created by subject or relative. Possible hoax/embellishment; definitely spammy, most certainly rubbishy. Tagged G11 (and a lot more would probably apply). Pax 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G11 per Pax above. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:22, 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 Speedy Deleted - G5 by TexasAndroid NAC ––Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bisht[edit]

Ashish Bisht (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. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Delete-Also made by a banned user. And yes not notable. Wgolf (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (creation by a sock of blocked user Sadman Sakibzz: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadman Sakibzz) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7, no claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffri Sirait[edit]

Jeffri Sirait (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) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I know practically nothing about Indonesia, it seems this article is lacking in every capacity possible. It needs complete rewriting. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Clear-cut A7. Pax 07:31, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) – nafSadh did say 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Fiji relations[edit]

Bangladesh–Fiji relations (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)

Another non notable Bangladesh bilateral, no embassies, no agreements (only considering signing a MOU, no visits by leaders or ministers, no real trade. The usual want to trade more statements. The article is based on the usual spike in coverage when a non resident ambassador presents his credentials and nothing actually happens in the years after despite all the promises . I'm sure someone will come up with the silly argument that since Bangladesh has 158 million therefore this combination is notable. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article should be kept according to the general notability guidelines, seven references with significant coverage. Nomian (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more nationalist sausage-making with the same editor synthesising individual events and claims together to tryto make some notable whole. Primary sources from government agencies are not the same thing as independent reliable sources for the purpose of WP:GNG. The suggestion this meets that guideline is based only on misdirected ownership of articles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:GNG, Dhaka Tribune, Banglanews24.com, Fiji Sun don't seem to be government sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look. Some are broken links, others are Government primary sources and the others are credited to "MINFO", the Fijian Department of Information. Are any of them legitimate secondary sources? Doesn't look like it. Modus operandi for the editor in question. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Bangladesh is among the most populous nations in the world; the page Foreign relations of Bangladesh (of which this is a sub-page) is lengthy and should be lengthy, as a legitimate topic of academic study. While individual subpages of this huge page may be nonsensical in isolation, "Wikipedia is not paper" and in toto these subpages (including this one) make sense. Carrite (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• being among the most populous nations in the world is a far fetched argument for keeping, you've recycled this many times with no effect, what is required is evidence of significant ongoing relations which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nigeria is pretty popular as well though and yet we don't have that many pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the population argument is weak in my view, beware of WP:OSE.Tigraan (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Azeroth is also very populous and I'm sure plenty of people play WoW there. Perhaps Bangladesh-Azeroth relations is in order. Or would that be Azeroth-Bangladesh relations. Do we retain alphabetical order if one of the locations is fictional or does that only apply if the relationship itself is a work of fiction? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

size of population is no indicator of bilateral notability. I see the main reasons for a lack of Bangladesh bilateral notability is the fact it's a relatively poor country, they don't have the resources to establish embassies, agreements with other countries and they have little influence outside their own region. Having a population larger than Russia does not somehow advance them up the bilateral ladder. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy that, though. They have enough resources to contribute peace-keeping troops (and associated hardware) to UN interventions in Africa but not enough resources to set up diplomatic posts in those same countries? I think the more likely explanation is that while they are happy to commit troops (and can afford to do so), the relationships in question aren't anywhere close to important enough to establish a permanent diplomatic presence. There are certainly diplomatic relationships that are genuinely important to Bangladesh and its people and government but these Bangladesh-random country relations articles are clutching at straws. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from. they do have resources if they can send military, but yes little desire to actually establish embassies or bilateral agreements. this again is nothing to do with the size of Bangladesh's population... we all know UK has a much smaller population but much more notable bilateral relations with the rest of the world, because the UK actually promotes bilateralism. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a couple of sources. Overall notable. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 40% of Fiji's population is of South Asian ancestry, hence making for natural cultural relations between the two countries. Also passes WP:GNG.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, 38% is Indo-Fijian (from India) reflected in the fact that almost 30% of the population of Fiji are practising Hindus. They are not (broadly) "South-East Asians", they are Indians and calling them "of South Asian ancestry" so you can shoe-horn a non-existent Bangladeshi Diaspora into the population of Fiji is silly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes I think Bangladeshis would find it offensive to be classed as Indian people. and somehow trying to suggest this adds to Bangladesh-Fiji relations is plain original research. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research? Why on earth would an Oceanic country be interested in informing the Bangladesh Prime Minister on its political situation? Indo-Fijians are not Indian people, they're Fijians with ancestry from undivided British India/modern South Asia.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is 40% according to their 2001 census. Indo-Fijians settled in Fiji during the time of the undivided subcontinent (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan). Bangladesh also has the world's third largest Hindu population. One of the sources includes a Fijian newspaper article on how the Bangladeshi prime minister was informed on Fiji's current situation, which clearly shows the importance attached to ties with Bangladesh. South Asians share strong cultural traits, heck my surname is the same as a former prime minister of Fiji.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true why isn't Bengali spoken by Indo-Fijians? The majority of the Indo-Fijians are Hindi speakers and most can speak English. Others are proficient in other Indian languages such as Bhojpuri, Urdu, Tamil, Bihari, Gujarati and Punjabi. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said there are no Bengalis in Fiji? [55] 2 --Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indo-Fijians aside, Bangladesh is certainly a vital Commonwealth friend of Fiji. Bangladesh is one of the countries which pushed for a return to democracy in Fiji, and elections were held in 2014. So there is clearly a growing political, economic and cultural relationship with this Melanesian country, who are also helping bring rugby union to Bangladesh.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

helping a country in rugby union is hardly big news in the world of international relations, and rugby union is hardly known in Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said that in a cultural sense. It's growing in popularity.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one off assistance in a sport that most Bangladeshis have never heard of is really pushing it for adding to the world of international relations. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh supported Fiji's transition to civilian rule, its having growing economic interactions, and cultural exchanges (in sports). Fiji also has historic links with South Asia. Fiji's president has said that his country looks to Bangladesh with a lot interest and is "proud" of its friendship.1 I think you're pushing it by ignoring the world of international relations at large, especially the role of emerging countries. This relationship easily passes WP:GNG. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

other things may add to bilateral relations but I was specifically referring to rugby assistance as pushing it. if it easily passes WP:GNG, there would be unanimous keep vote... which there is not. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it still does WP:GNG. It's a significant and growing relationship. If it was Tonga or Nauru,I wouldn't give a damn. But its Fiji, the largest Pacific Island economy.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so Fiji being the largest Pacific Island economy gives it automatic notability for bilaterals? LibStar (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does strengthen the case for relations with Bangladesh, which is a traditional friend of Fiji. The Fjians were also among the early recognizers of Bangladesh's independence. Fiji has a prominent role in the Pacific Islands. Its military is also interestingly a major contributor to UN peackeeping.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the article? It goes by good sources.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Again, passes WP:GNG. Sources have been found during this discussion to add to the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you have made almost identical style votes in 3 bilateral AfDs in 3 minutes like [56], it's as if you don't actually read these AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they've all be relisted at the same time. WP:AGF. Read it. And read it again. It's as if you don't actually have a clue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite remarkable coming from someone throwing bad-faith accusations about elsewhere. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you? No-one. Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person against whom you've made those bad-faith accusations. You seem quite an angry and troubled individual. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nothing wrong with this page. Hm2715 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock-puppet. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete *all* of these "Bangladesh-XYZ relations" articles (they should have been bundled, IMO)...and then launch the investigations for meat/sock-puppetry. Pax 08:54, 11 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) 03:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout. The Hit Album[edit]

Breakout. The Hit Album (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)

Ready To Roll's Dancin Gold. Various Artists (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 albums. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable compilation albums. No significant coverage to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nope, doesn't seem to be worthy of inclusion. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 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. "They seem me trollin'" applies, Obvious troll is obvious. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whale[edit]

Whale (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)

There is already a Cetacea article, which title could be moved to whale, and this article states "whale" excludes dolphins, despite listing killer whales and pilot whales as "whales" and dolphins as toothed whales, an animal cannot be a toothed whale but not a whale. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if anything, the rationale given in AfD is an argument to delete or merge Cetacea. Whale is certainly a notable topic, and even if the article is terrible it needs to be rewritten, not dynamited. Tigraan (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Obvious troll is obvious.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the two articles, they are really on the same topic. Borock (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - there is clearly place for articles on whales and on cetacea, and dolphins and porpoises for that matter. If the proposer wants to be constructive edit the article to rectify the inconsistencies. |→ Spaully ^τ 13:40, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
• Speedy Keep Troll AfD. Bobherry talk 13:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are thousands of years of usage in history and mythology of the "whale" construct, without regard to the specific cetacea order, making it is very much notable separately. A way to settle could be moving all the biology stuff to Cetacea and use Whale just for the historic and cultural aspects. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:04, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief[edit]

Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief (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)

List that is a duplication of source material and not of a notable topic.

Also nominating Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief for the same reason. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. Wikisource doesn't have this so transwiki to wikisource is the closest outcome to deletion that I'd be willing to advocate. In the article history Johnbod recommends listifying it and I'd be interested in hearing his reasons for saying that? I can potentially see value in a List of Domesday Book tenants-in-chief but not so sure why we'd want county-specific ones.—S Marshall T/C 11:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason given for the prods was "not notable", which is nonsense. No attempt to justify that is given here. At the moment there are essentially bare linked lists, which could be listified (ie renamed), or expanded into one or more articles, or merged, as a list or article. But the material and links is worth having somewhere on WP or WS, though I think it is already a bit too "treated" for the latter. I agree I'd rather not see the whole country done with short lists in different places. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Johnbod.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain (article created by me). The Domesday Book tenants-in-chief were the magnates of feudal Norman England who wielded huge power. They were the billionaires of the 11th century. Each one possessed often dozens, in the case of a couple, hundreds, of manors and had no overlord but the king himself. This was the top tier of feudal society. Each one of the tenants-in-chief certainly merits his own article, although clearly in dealing with such distant history surviving biographical material is limited in the case of certain individuals, other than what lands he held, who his heirs were etc., still highly notable. This article is an important foundation article for the history of every Devon Manor, parish and village. It helps the reader to understand what a small and select group these people were and on occasion the relationships between them, at least 2 in the list were brothers and most shared a common birthplace of Normandy and had played some highly significant role (all record of which has in most cases been lost) in the Norman Conquest. There is of course further scope for development within the article. The modern history of every one of the hundreds of Devon villages begins with just one of this elite handful of 40 or so men (added to which were a handful of Normandy churches and a very few more minor tenants, e.g. a couple of dozen King's servants and thanes). I grouped them by counties because that's the way the Domesday Book was written, county by county (Devon being moreover the only English county to have its own additional version of the DB (Exon Domesday)), and because that's how English history worked for many centuries, powerful people (except the very largest magnates) were extremely parochial and tended to operate almost exclusively within one county - they concentrated their landholdings in a single county (i.e. virtually independent administrative unit) and built a power-base there by marrying into the other landowning families of that county, almost exclusively, often for several centuries. They operated local government and the magistracy of that county alone, not (generally) of any other. They virtually took it in turns to represent the various parliamentary seats within that county, and the office of Sheriff. Thus a cohesive network of county families was created. This was especially the case in remote and isolated Cornwall, where the ruling elite (landed gentry) were almost all cousins, as Richard Carew (d.1620) intimated. Adjoining Devon was similar, being located on an isolated peninsula. Can't see why this article has been nominated for deletion?? Hopefully I've shown that this is a notable topic, but I don't understand what is meant by "duplication of source material". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Tentative keep. Moving it into a national list might be difficult if the intention is to create a table, because large land-holders often held land in different counties, thus making any kind of sortable table difficult to produce. There is a lot of scope for a summary of the contents and more information to be included, splitting the article into ecclesiastical and secular land-owners, for instance. Also, there is no indication as to what manors each person owned at present; including this would be useful. A lot of work needs doing, but I don't see why this article needs to be deleted. (Unsigned post by User:Noswall59)

Good point. I would suggest that the appropriate place for a listing of manors held is in the individual tenant-in-chief's own article. As an extreme example, Baldwin the Sheriff (number 16 on the Domesday Book list), had 176 holdings in Devon, possibly too many to list in an overview article like this one. In the case of others, so little biographical information has survived in records that there is little else to write about other than their landholdings.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• I certainly agree that the subject's notable ---- every county for which there is a Domesday Book entry will have coverage in, for example, the Victoria County History. But I'm not sure it's encyclopaedic. It duplicates the original source (in modern English) without adding anything to it. Do the "keep" voters intend to use this content in a navigational list?—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]