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

The result was keep. Nakon 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafeŕoor (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 appear to be a hoax or neologism, with so few on-line sources that it appears virtually unknown or not-notable, with no sources to be able to write a contextual article. (I am aware not all information is online.) MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wrote the article. It is a legitimate entity within a legitimate navigational system. There are two references already. While I appreciate that sometimes it may be useful to request article deletion, that is actually a rare situation and in most cases it is an extreme and final course of action. In this case, there is no evidence. In future, if you want to call referenced articles written by long term contributors and administrators hoaxes — without even bothering to provide any evidence — I would point out that you are simply wasting people's time. prat (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two references with only one sentence in each, nothing else, at all. If you would like to quote the policy that gives long term contributers and administrators a special symbol that says their articles are above Wikipedia policies, go ahead, then I will recognize the indicator in the future and know that the articles are off limits to me. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Length of reference is irrelevant, and I claim no special status... simply point out that even circumstantial evidence here points towards legitimacy. This article was created as part of my significant contributions to sailing articles, including Wa (watercraft) which incidentally earned an editors barnstar, and significant expansion to templates and their entries like Trimarans and Multihulls. prat (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Length of reference does matter, it goes towards establishing notability if someone writes a book or a paper about something versus mentioning it in passing. In the forner case you wind up readily finding agreement of notability as the source has been vetted, the topic, by publication and citations. In this case you give no indication that you plucked your terms out of anything but thin air, two sentences. There really seems to be nothing else on this topic, nothing. And you do claim special status, that of "long term contributors and administrators", so, what policies say that posting an AfD requires a check of how long you have been contributing and whether or not you have privileged AfD prevention status as an "administrator". MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective it's usual to see who created a page and in what context before calling for its outright deletion and I'm sorry if you feel this is somehow strange or requesting special treatment, which it is not. This is good encyclopedic content. The thrust of your argument in this case seems to be that you feel the subject is a 'hoax or neologism' because you can't see many references to it online. In fact, a lot of human knowledge existed before the internet, still exists outside of the internet, and will continue to do so. In this case, perhaps you are not aware that the subject is an element within near-extinct traditional celestial navigation system of a barely populated region of the Pacific Ocean. All the references are academic, in fitting with what you would expect for such a subject. Academic references are one of the most solid types available, because an author providing false or misleading information faces serious recourse in their career and reputation. Admittedly, there is little content here presently, however the correct option for Wikipedia in this case is to let the article grow as people find time and interest to bring in additional sources. Deleting it would negatively impact both context in other pages and the future of Wikipedia's coverage of the important historic navigation traditions underlining the Origins, exploration and settlement of Polynesia, one of earth's greatest and last peopled frontiers. This will be my last comment on this deletion request, which I consider ridiculous. prat (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to ping me when you find the "can't delete article because an administrator wrote it" policy. It is not a shortcoming, it is two sentences on the entire subject. Almost a Googlewhack. While claiming special administrator privileges, and that the writer of the article determines its notability (an anti-Wikipedia concept), you still have not offered more sources from anywhere, which may indicate you based this on only those two. I think the nomintation can based on policies which require the topic, not the writer, to be notable. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mythological places, historical mistakes and "lost" things are not hoaxes. This journal piece is a solid RS. It should also be noted that extinct volcanic islands in the central Pacific are always gradually subsiding under their own weight (the Hawaiian island chain being the archetypical example of that in progress from younger to older islands), with coral atolls being entirely coral perched atop now completely sunken volcanic features - sometimes precariously and prone to collapse after great storms or earthquakes. Since it was used in navigation, it is likely that Kafeŕoor once existed as a coral reef, but is now a seamount or guyot of indeterminate location. Pax 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it did it would be mentioned in more than one single source, one mention in a single 40-year-old source is not an encyclopedia article. Maybe it was never mentioned again, anywhere, because it was corrected out of that source. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Kaferoor" (no accent on the 'r') helps. This RS deals specifically with the subject of "ghost islands" in Polynesia, Kaferoor being one of them. Pax 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a stub on a fairly obscure topic, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Google Scholar search found several academic references.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several?" The same one plus a single regurgitation and nothing else before or after for decades? It was probably a misprint, now Wikipedia mirrors will have it rise out of nothing. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:44, 25 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) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Falcons Noise gate (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)

WP:NOTNEWS might apply here. When searching for this "Noisegate" thing, I found most sources are from the first few days of February; compare it to Deflategate, where, despite being from late January, coverage continues to this day. A mention at Atlanta Falcons might suffice, but I don't think "Noisegate" is notable enough for its own page, especially considering only one source was sourced on the page. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it hasn't had any lasting power that I can find. Should it be referenced again later on, then we have something. Mentioning in the Falcons article is a good place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS; as Paul McDonald correctly notes above, there is no evidence that this one-cycle news event has any long-term notability. Depending on sources and outcome, this may or may not deserve a mention and a footnote in the 2015 NFL and Atlanta Falcons season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and subsequent comments; there's nothing I can really add to the above votes, no substantial coverage since the story first broke mean this now falls down on WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I think we need a corollary to NFT: Wikipedia is not for something a bored sportswriter scribbled to beat deadline. (Oh, wait, there is ...) Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable event, article even specifically states that this has been a very minor story -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Atlanta Falcons 2014 season (unless an article is written on 2014 NFL controversies generally). Minor non-notable infraction of sporting rules. Only passing notability results from (i) contrasts with DeflateGate hysteria, and (ii) what was presented as (and felt like) a scandal ridden year for the NFL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:50, 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 delete. Article's subject is found to not be suitable for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Railway Ticket Reservation Codes (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)

Personally I'm not sure what to make of the article....... Anyway can't find evidence of notability fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 04:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't object to Merging but IMHO none of it seems mergable and then there's the question of "What do we merge?" ... Personally I think deletion is the better option here I honestly do... –Davey2010^Talk 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm actually sort of at a loss as to just which notability policy to best link here. But a list of ticket processing codes for Indian rail is going to run afoul of many of them; there's not even a credible claim of notability to be had here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Merge this article with the Indian Railways article, rather than delete it. It is likely that these codes are useful in buying tickets and traveling on the Indian Railway trains, but we all know that being useful does not help someone seeking to retain some information on Wikipedia.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem is I'm not sure where or what parts could even be Merged, IMHO It doesn't look like it can anywhere but meh that's my 2¢ on it. –Davey2010^Talk 10:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not for this purpose. Proposing for delete. Athachil (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply not the place for this subject. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interface) @ 10:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -We already have a parent article, information from present one could be covered into, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation. (courtesy ping : Dthomsen8, I think, IRCTC could be a more suitable merge target). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into IRCTC, Indian Railways, or Railway tickets. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an Indian railway ticketing manual. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:LISTCRUFT in its purest form. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Can be merged rather than delete as they do contain encyclopedic content. Wont warrant a separate article but can be merged into any of the parent articles as mentioned by Anupmehra or RSrikanth. Just a table of the codes along with a short description might suffice in any parent article. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:44, 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 no consensus. There is clearly no consensus on either side, both with well formed arguments in policy. This is a case which shows our policies can indeed conflict with each other, and as the community cannot decide (via a very thorough discussion at AFD) which ones outweigh the others, I have no choice but to close this as a true representation of the debate. Lastly, as MZMcBride stated below, any further discussion regarding whether this should be redirected or merged elsewhere can be worked out on the appropriate talk pages, as it's clear that consensus will not be found here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bromance (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)

"Bromance" is just a buzzword for concepts that already exist and are already well documented at platonic love, romance, friendship, male bonding and in other articles. (There is already a bromance article on Wiktionary.) Gronky (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Reluctant Keep -Other fandom terms that would usually belong in Urban Dictionary are kept, I do not see any difference to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.146.46 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 February 2015‎ — 2.27.146.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Would be more in place at wikitionary or merged with Friendship or male bonding articles. Wikipedia should be more serious than having articles as long as this on "bromance", which is just a male bonding term. Have some credibility, please. bladez (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bladez: Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with notability on the article subject. "Seriousness" is not a notability requirement. I have presented sources down below that discuss the article subject extensively and distinctly from simple male bonding, as Bromance itself is a genre of film. Silverseren^C 20:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverseren, you've added 26 comments to this page. I think we know your opinion. (This is the only comment I'm adding.) And your list of sources is off-topic. It only proves the word is in use. That means it deserves a Wiktionary entry, and it has one. Documenting words is not Wikipedia's goal. In 20 years time many men will still like and love each other, but this word will have disappeared. That's because it's a buzzword, not a distinct concept.

P.S. Happy Valentine's Day guys! Gronky (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gronky. Chris Smowton (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smowton: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below Chris Smowton (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to male bonding. ubiquity (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to friendship. YitzchakF (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, it's a material for the Urban Dictionary, not even Wiktionary. KiloByte (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @KiloByte: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, It may warrant a footnote on an existing page, ie male bonding or just friendship. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 12:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @E0steven: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also believe this belongs in the Urban Dictionary. An article may make sense in the future, if use persists. --Uncronopio86 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Uncronopio86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• @Uncronopio86: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Silver seren: Your insults are not such good "sources".--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read other opinions I agree that this would make a nice complement to other more pertinent articles like friendship or male bonding and such. Perhaps include it in "in popular culture" or make a new section.

• Delete. The word bromance is in the OED, so it's probably worthy of inclusion in WikipediaWiktionary, but I fail to see how it fits in an encyclopædia. I feel sad that Wikipedia is so obviously influenced by xkcd. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be having this discussion. J Alexander D Atkins (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alex.atkins: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I meant Wiktionary. Your 'sources' link doesn't appear to go anywhere. What are you trying to link to? Information, or instructions, or something else? J Alexander D Atkins (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Merge with Male bonding. Well-sourced article, and the subject is clearly not a passing fad. Wikipedia doesn't ban use of all slang terms. But there is a lot of duplication between this article and Male bonding, so they should probably be merged.Chessrat (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE This is my fifth time TRYING to vote on this. Its bullshit (the process). Bromance is a subcategory of platonic friendship. NONE of the articles references are to studies ABOUT bromance. They are to uses of the word. Words belong in dictionaries. If an article on platonic friendship exists, merge this with it. If not, then clearly this doesn't deserve it either!Abitslow (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abitslow: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to and Merge relevant content with Male bonding. A sensible article on the subject would include discussion of male-male friendships before the term "bromance" came into usage, as a subject in itself rather than as a "precursor". Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to and Merge with Friendship. That article covers everything necessary and I don't see a separate need for bromance. Keenman76 (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment:: The background to this DR is probably this xkcd comic of today. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Male bonding. Should not delete content that is well sourced, but it should be at the more established article name. Darx9url (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.

• Keep This discussion is highly biased by the fact that xkcd targeted it today. If there is a reason to delete it, have the conversation at a future date. Jbeyerl (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge and redirect to male bonding. The word has become ubiquitous enough that WP should give a user someplace to go. -R. fiend (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per J Alexander D Atkins, except I'm pretty sure he means inclusion in Wiktionary.Yannick (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ytrottier: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 132.206.150.251 (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because the word is dumb and people should stop using it doesn't mean the well-sourced article about said word should be deleted. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Closedmouth (and also agreeing with Jbeyerl). -- KTC (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's possible the article is a WP:CFORK and per Jbeyerl. Pufflepets (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article appears to distinguish "bromance" as a distinct category of friendship, provides plenty of reliable references, and is clearly sufficiently important as a cultural phenomenon to justify a separate article. Whilst many people dislike the word itself, this is not an acceptable reason for deletion. I feel that it would be inappropriate to merge this article into friendship, as bromance is (as the article notes) a specific and well-documented kind of friendship. We don't attempt to merge communism into socialism, although the one is simply a form of the other. In the same way, a merge here would be inappropriate. It's regrettable that a cartoonist's whim should be driving this debate, but we do have a general wiki-principle: just because you don't like something is no reason to delete it from Wikipedia. RomanSpa (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's a clearly defined topic, which is well structured. I also disagree with the issue that it contains original research, as it appears to be well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• very reluctant Keep...per WP:NAD - and specifically WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. "...we have plenty of references here that do exactly that. WP:NOTE isn't an issue. However, considerable cleanup is required. Poor writing style isn't grounds for deletion. Suggested redirects such as Friendship are not synonyms - we wouldn't merge Love with Human behavior. Merge with Male bonding is possible, but there are connotations to bromance that aren't there in male bonding, so that merge seems 'iffy'. SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [s]Keep My initial impression was definitely delete. Then I saw how well sourced it was and I would have suggested merging with Male Bonding but that is an uncited stub and barely an article. Bromance is talked about, in reliable sources and the article while poorly written in places seems to meet all criteria.[/s] SPACKlick (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been convinced Merge to homosociality

Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.

• Delete or Merge and Redirect. I agree with Abitslow, Pseudomonas, and Gronky. This article is just a present use-case of Male Bonding or Human Bonding, and should be merged into one of these. Additionally, WP:NAD says we don't really need an article just describing what the word is. Every reference in the Bromance article deals with a media usage of the term, not a reference for the term. Additionally, and I know this isn't a reason, but Bromance isn't really mentioned (and has no place) in the template. Shashwat986 → talk 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shashwat986: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, It may warrant a footnote on an existing page. Jhealy (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jhealy: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above & mainly Closedmouth - Yup it's a dumb word but there's sufficient sources in the article so passes GNG, so I don't really see a reason to delete... –Davey2010^Talk 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — and redirect to Friendship. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not an urban dictionary; just because some people use a term indistinguishable from friendship doesn't mean it should have its own encyclopedia article. The word is different, the meaning is not. Therefore, redirect to Friendship. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the meaning is the same, you clearly have never had a bromance. I've got lots of friends, but bromances are rarer and entirely different from most friendships. RomanSpa (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How are they different? They may be good friends, which are indeed rare. Other than that I fail to see the difference.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gerritho: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Notable, well sourced. Now would be a good time to improve it, given increased traffic from xkcd. Mathiastck (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It doesn't seem like it was actually well sourced, a number of veteran editors have reduced the article size substantially over the last 24 hours.

Current version has 27 citations, which seems like a lot given the article's small size. Mathiastck (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As a non-notable trendy hipster slang word of the month... WP is not a slang dictionary. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC) /// Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ----->[reply]

Comment - Male bonding would be the encyclopedic term. Merging or redirecting to that makes some sense. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carrite: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or Merge with Yaoi. While I understand the distaste at the term, it is no longer slang, and is an interesting social phenomenon, clearly distinguishable from Friendship, Male Bonding or Platonic Friendship. Votes to Merge with Friendship should perhaps be ignored as XKCD-inspired vandalism. Votes to merge with the stub Male Bonding or nonexistent page Platonic Friendship would require there was something to merge with, and they are not synonyms. Bromance phenomenon is interesting mostly for its marketing and cultural appeal aspects, which mostly target women (qv Yaoi), which is markedly different from the target demographic for male bonding (an action movie, guy-film staple). In a marketing sense, Yaoi is closest, and likely an influence on Bromance, but is still very different in both context and meaning. Yaoi also exists as at least a half-decent, well-cited page. DewiMorgan (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaoi is a completely distinct topic from this article: it is about specifically sexual/romantic relationships between fictional male characters, rather than non-sexual/romantic relationships between real or fictional males. IF this article is redirected, yaoi would be a very poor choice. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When there is a commonly known name for something it changes that thing in meaningful ways — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.53.32 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge This gets plenty of usage and so should not be a redlink. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect friendship to here, and replace all occurrences of the word bromance with friendship. rerdavies (talk)
• Keep The term is (IMO) silly, but it's relevant enough to warrant it's own article independent of male bonding. chrisFjordson (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect friendship to here, and replace all occurrences of the word bromance with friendship. 129.25.18.122 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — 129.25.18.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - I agree that Male bonding is a more appropriate location for this information -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dtgriscom: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Valid article BrentNewland (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But make it an article on the history and use of the word. There are many such articles here. People looking for an article on "bromance" are probably looking for this information, not for information on male-male friendship itself. Borock (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a pretty well-written article, and it may have value that merely documenting "friendship" wouldn't. —ajf (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Male bonding, the differences in meaning are very slight (if any). Rur (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While everything's sourced well, that hides the fact that there's very little here that goes beyond the dictionary definition and examples of the term.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Or Merge and Redirect, as weak second choice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @SarekOfVulcan: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The fact is this is under heavy debate precisely *because* this word is an interesting cultural battleground. If anything, the article needs to be expanded and improved, but I hardly see how deletion is in order. What is being challenged by those advocating deletion is that the term "bromance" describes a new phenomenon; this is arguable, but the novelty of the descriptor is not. *Why* people say "bromance" instead of "friendship" (presumably something about newfound comfort/discomfort with the changing status of male sexuality in the context of modern acceptance of homosexuality) is an interesting subject, and deserves to be written about in an encyclopedia. If you have any doubt that this is a subject pop culture is deeply concerned with, go watch 22 Jump Street. Graft | talk 22:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete or Redirect to friendship. This is really not noteworthy and really seems to just be a word made for marketing. The information here is dubious and questionable at times. ETA: yes xkcd has influenced the having this conversation but it doesn't make the conversation less relevent. lunisneko^(talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lunisneko: Please see this section for relevant sources. Silverseren^C 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the concept itself is a subconcept of friendship and male bonding and there may be lots of overlapping issues but we could use the same argumentation to merge friendship and male bonding. And whale and dolphin, plants and trees... --Enyavar (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment:: The allegedly well-sourced article had a bunch of broken links. I've fixed them now, but still, having little superscript numbers all over the place doesn't necessarily mean it's actually sourced :) Chris Smowton (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect into male bonding, which is itself too short. The only thing worthwhile in the article as it stands is the mention of Korean and Japanese record companies encouraging these kinds of friendships. I would be happy to see 'Bromance' become a section in 'Male Bonding'. 7daysahead (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article has gotten strides better in the last ten days. It's still not a great article; I finished reading it feeling that I had read maybe two interesting sentences that could have been expanded upon (specifically the 'Characteristics' section) - but I now believe that it could be improved to become a good article in its own right, and that merging it into male bonding would require careful flagging of those sources that specifically talk about 'bromances'. 7daysahead (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect with a stronger parent concept like platonic Friendship or similar. I am for keeping the article if it can be adequately differentiated from concepts like male bonding. Comment: I disagree with the claim that it is adequate as it is. The strong references are often about masculinity or masculine social etiquette (etc), but some citations are not clearly about bromance per se, just related, and are being used to pad the article. If there is relevant and strong academic literature there should be no need to hedge around the subject. Strangejames (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to male bonding, which should redirect and merge to friendship, as per everyone above who said the same thing for all the obvious reasons.

Comment - the article was nominated for deletion in 2006, which concluded in a determination to delete, it is unclear why it ever returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.225.41 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 129.98.225.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Perhaps this deletion review will shed some light... —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect with male bonding. The concept is worthy of attention, but the name is a complete misnomer. When an article about a word that is created by combining "bro" and "romance" needs to be initiated by clarification that it is not romantic in nature, that's a pretty good sign that a serious encyclopedia shouldn't have that as the primary term used. The 'male bonding' article would be dramatically improved by the contents of this page, and they would have a title that makes sense.65.131.3.138 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 65.131.3.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per Jbeyerl, Pufflepets, RomanSpa, Joseph2302. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As much as I believe this article does not warrant its own page and ought to be subsumed into homosociality, this AfD should be resolved later. Hollth (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly Merge, but as the article is right now, I find myself wondering where the information is. At least some of the cited sources are just there because the word occurred once or twice, and as I stated earlier, it seems to be a lot of words and not many actual facts. In the interests of full disclosure, I came here via xkcd, so that is a thing.108.50.51.25 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 108.50.51.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per KiloByte 100.6.6.151 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Graft | talk. Benjamin (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the term is commonly used. The article needs work, but it's possible to improve it. Empire3131 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a discussion of the term as a socially constructed phenomena in and of itself, distinct from male bonding. In particular, it's usage in modern fiction media, including criticism of such, has been fairly common of late. At the absolute least, it's clear that the term "bromance" would need its own section in the male bonding article, but I fully believe that there is sufficient information about Bromance specifically that an entire article can be derived from it. It's not just male bonding, it's male bonding in a cultural climate of homosexual acceptance/rejection overhauling, and the term came about because of this. It's an interesting topic, and one that has been extensively written about in the overall culture at large. I would not be surprised if there were papers published in academic journals about it (I do not currently have access to a university library to check though). Fieari (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Comment I just noticed AfD has a quick link to google scholar now. Check it out, bromance is actually discussed in academic papers as a concept independent of friendship and male bonding. This appears to confirm independent notability to me. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (first choice) or Weak Keep (distant second choice) - It's a notable neologism but notability and sourcing doesn't mean it merits its own article if it's insufficiently different from existing concepts. I'm not convinced it's a distinct topic from e.g. friendship and/or male bonding. That doesn't mean there aren't nuanced differences, but there's not enough to say about those minor differences such that a separate article makes sense. The "characteristics" section strengthens my skepticism while the rest of the article is just a series of examples from pop culture. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge and Redirect, a mention or perhaps a subsection on either Friendship or Male bonding should more than suffice. 194.16.178.140 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Gronky, or Redirect to romantic friendship or life partner. In re: Fieari, they may exist, but presently, the article's references are mainly/only people 'using' it, not studying nor talking about it. The actual study referenced (Rowan, George, et al.) does not appear to mention bromance. "Faux Friendship" does not distinguish 'bromance' from other friendships in any substantive way. "Male Imitation" is not a study of bromance but attempted application of the term to a fictional relationship.174.45.249.100 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 174.45.249.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Additional Comment Bromance, romantic friendship, and life partnership are all very different. Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect is the best option. Merging it into either Friendship or Male Bonding makes the most sense. That way, people still get the information they about the topic. (And clearly, it's something people want to know about.) But the information is better organized. A Bromance is really just a male friendship. The term has, I think, enough currency to warrant a section in another article, but not enough to warrant it's own page. Rylon (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge and Redirect, bromance is just a synonym for male bonding or male friendship, a subsection or addendum in either of those articles would suffice. High Tinker (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT If it is merged, it should be merged with homosociality (which already has a subtopic on 'bromance'), not male bonding and most certainly not platonic love. Hollth (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT If homosociality already has a section on 'bromance' then that does make it a good target for a merge. Rylon (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect. The article barely contains anything except etymology and example usage, i.e. discussion about the word, which should be in wikt:bromance, per WP:NOTDIC. The rest, if not already covered by the current article on homosociality should be merged into that article. Original research trying to establish that bromance is a new phenomenon, not covered by pre-existing terminology, should be removed. - PeR (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to friendship or similar. It's just a modern word, which is currently "In" for male friendship. Scarvia (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. This might qualify as a subheader on a friendship page. The word itself is notable but certainly this does not warrant its own article. Neil n SM (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Neil n SM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• comment, maybe stubify - as a neologism it's suitable for a dictionary, not WP. For a proper Wikipedia article it needs serious sources (scholarly if possible), not just proof of pop-culture usage. Wikipedia could probably have an article on "bromance" that treats it as a noted cultural/artistic phenomenon that's received commentary in the academic literature (it must have spurred some articles by now): but that will at minimum require a stubify. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Friendship or homosociality. This is really nothing more than a dicdef, further expansion seems difficult. Very subjective in many regards. Content may be better served in another article. Roodog2k (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reluctantly. Silly word or not, "bromance" is a concept that is very widespread in the world. It has different connotations to "platonic friendship" and is something that a Wikipedian might conceivably want to research. Therefore, it should have an article. Charles Baynham (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge While the number of uses of a term can be used to determine notability of the concept it refers to, there is no need for a separate page for each synonym. The word 'bromance' seems pejorative and the only conceptual difference from Romantic friendship seems to be that it is all male by definition. I don't think this is sufficient to warrant keeping this content separate from both Romantic friendship and Male bonding. Additionally, expansion would not harm the Male bonding article. The argument that it refers to a genre of film similar to Buddy film seems moot since the current article is not about that genre. If needed the title could be repurposed as a page for the genre (with reference to the merge location of the current page at the top). However, this should only be done if it conceptually differs from Buddy film otherwise we would be having this discussion again for the new page. An alternative would be a disambiguation page. PinkShinyRose (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. This is just a new and amusing term for something that existed and was discussed long before 2102. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been convinced that the article does not have enough distinct content to warrant a separate article from homosociality. !Vote above changed accordingly. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Are we really doing this? Are we doing this and you all didn't even bother to look for sources first before arguing with each other? Both sides are stupid here, Delete and Keep. Ugh. Once again, it comes down to someone who actually follows how Wikipedia works to actually look for sources. And, surprisingly, I found them. Easily found them. Sources listed below. Silverseren^C 08:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Chen, Elizabeth J. (Spring 2012). "Caught In A Bad Bromance". Texas Journal of Women and the Law. 21 (2). University of Texas Press: 242–266.
• Batty, Craig (July 30, 2014). "And the Screenwriter Created Man: Male Characterization in Bromance and Bromedy". Screenwriters and Screenwriting: Putting Practice Into Context. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 238-255. ISBN 1137338938.
• DeAngelis, Michael (June 1, 2014). Reading the Bromance: Homosocial Relationships in Film and Television. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 0814338992.
• Nikoloutsos, Konstantinos P. (Fall 2008). "The Alexander Bromance: Male Desire and Gender Fluidity in Oliver Stone's Historical Epic". Helios. 35 (2). Texas Tech University Press: 223–251.
• Harbidge, Lesley (January 3, 2014). "Redefining screwball and reappropriating liminal spaces: The contemporary bromance and Todd Phillips' The Hangover DVD". Comedy Studies. 3 (1). Routledge: 5–16. doi:10.1386/cost.3.1.5_1.
• Thomas, Kayley (July 30, 2012). ""Bromance is so passe": Robert Downey, Jr's Queer Paratexts". Sherlock Holmes for the 21st Century: Essays on New Adaptations. McFarland & Company. p. 35-47. ISBN 0786468408.
• Lavigne, Carlen (April 1, 2013). "Two men and a moustache: Masculinity, nostalgia and bromance in The Good Guys". The Journal of Popular Television. 1 (1). Intellect Publishers: 69–81.

The fact that you found a couple instances of use is barely relevant. In any case, even if it were, your insults are absolutely out of place (and against Wikipedia normative, which you boast to know so well). I would suggest an apology on your side is in order.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "insult" isn't really directed at anyone specific. It is a general statement pointed at anyone who didn't bother to look for sources before voting. And, since I assume you followed the rules of AFD and did look for sources first, it is not directed at you. As for the sources, you're saying sources that are, especially for the first three, entirely about the term, its use, its meaning and representation in culture in media, and its evolution over time are not relevant? Silverseren^C 09:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you edited your comment it was clearly insulting. I won't take notice, especially since you softened it. Regarding the sources, they may be relevant to this discussion, sure, but they are not as good as you may claim. First line in the abstract of your first reference: "male friendship, or the "bromance,"". This calls for a merge more than a keep in my opinion.--Uncronopio86 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:, surely the primary reason to delete or merge the article is that it does not describe a distinct concept from existing articles with more "proper" (formal) titles, such as platonic love? Various people above have asserted that bromance == friendship, which is clearly not the case, but can you convincingly distinguish the concepts of bromance and platonic love? Isn't the former just a slang euphemism for the latter? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't see how those sources can be uses for a keep vote. The ones that I could read online, and that actually talk about the word bromance (as opposed to just using it) define it as either friendship or homosociality that already have their own Wikipedia articles. Those sources support the merge and redirect vote. A source supporting the keep vote would have to establish that bromance is something different from other concepts and not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. - PeR (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeR: According to the sources I linked, the bromance is more related to a genre of film, separate from bromantic comedy, which only deal with comedic films. This source has a lot to say on the topic and directly compares it to another genre known as chick flick. Silverseren^C 17:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:, sure, if the article were re-written so that it was exclusively about the film genre, then I would have no problems with it. Probably the best thing would be to re-name it as bromance genre and let bromance be a disambig page.

There's more to Wikipedia's AfD guidelines than whether or not an article or concept has sources. There are legitimate complaints about this article (which has had a multiple issues template on it for going on five years now) and those issues need to be addressed. I voted merge and redirect because I think it's the best way to help solve thous issues. The fact that Homosociality is well sourced, has a sub topic for bromance already, and seems to be well written makes it a good candidate for merging. If someone goes a web searching for 'bromance' and ends up on the Homosociality page, I think that person will get all the information they need. Rylon (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rylon: Personally, I feel like the article should be rewritten from scratch, as i'm fine with the concept of bromance as a social construct being under homosociality, but the sources I linked above very clearly discuss Bromance as a film and television genre, which I believe deserves an article. As I stated above, bromantic comedy (or bromedy) is considered a subgenre pertaining just to comedy movies of the overall bromance genre. Silverseren^C 23:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect per Rylon and various others. This word is mostly used to describe heterosexual male friendship, known as "male-bonding", from a sarcastic, sometimes cheeky POV. Should perhaps be mentioned as part of an Article re Friendship or Male Bonding. "Male Bonding" is the NPOV term that this clearly NON-NPOV word ("bro-mance") is attempting to describe. Also, by nature of the term, it could be confusing for the reader. Haven't found any sources that seem to indicate that it is used in the gay community for homosexual male romantic relationships...nor have we found any sources that indicate it is used to describe a sexual or romantic relationship between brothers...thus, it seems to be jargon or slang to describe male friendship or male bonding. Shark310 09:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and let Wankypedia continue to be an embarrassment to itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.35.9.222 (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 31.35.9.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete and move to TvTropes. Why would anyone resurrect it after the first deletion anyway? 178.236.140.170 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 178.236.140.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Silver Seren's disruptive badgering, spaming the same comment again and again, and pinging participants who oppose his view notwithstanding — this is still a REDUNDANT FORK, with this being the neologism and Male bonding the encyclopedic term. Sorry, SS, you only get one vote and spamming your opposition doesn't negate the views of others. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, male bonding is somewhat different. For example, the bond between father and son is one of kinship, rather than friendship. The bonds between a squad of soldiers are of honour and camaraderie, not friendship. The hazing rituals which form bonds between initiated members of a fraternity are quite unfriendly. Insofar as I understand a bromance, it's more a Hollywood thing — a genre concept, like the older term buddy film. Sorting this out is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, but AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Carrite: As Andrew said, it's a genre of film, separate from bromantic comedy, which would be a more specific iteration of bromance films. This source goes into great depth on the topic. And informing people in an AfD discussion when new sources have been presented (or the article has been expanded or significantly changed) is a common practice. You already know that. Silverseren^C 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete XKCD does make a valid point. This is not different from friendship in a way that is sufficently notable169.157.44.108 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — 169.157.44.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The sources I posted just above disagree with you and you haven't discussed them in your vote. Silverseren^C 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Silver Seren, please stop. Even as an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, it is second time I see you engaging in grossly disruptive behaviour. The previous time, it was with Encyclopaedia Dramatica, where you went on a similar hate-fest just because of a prior disagreement with someone who elsewhere took offense to a (redacted personal attack). This is inappropriate. KiloByte (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, you mean the off-wiki harassment from ED trolls because they were upset I and other Wikipedians were stopping them from adding unencyclopedic information to the Wikipedia article? Also, watch it with the personal attacks or I will take you to ANI. Silverseren^C 20:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's mostly the tone of this discussion. All sides are rather dismissive of the other sides, not specific to you but it would be a lie to say your posts are not slightly abrasive. It does not help anyone when insults are used, and it's not helpful when users are arrogant. But I don't care too much about these specifics of who challenging whom. It's more important to me that we try and understand what created the argument in the first place (ignoring XKCD, though Monroe [Munroe] certainly catalyzed the discussion). I think that part of what's going on is that the article is confusing its readers. I am one of them -- I don't know anything about theatre & media studies, but I do a bit about sociology. I remember reading the bromance article a while ago and thinking "okay, it's some sort of lay term for male bonding." For this discussion, I looked up the term in more serious literature and I got theatre essays and pop-culture references -- something I know little if anything about, and have less authority to judge in terms of reference quality, so I didn't. But this is confusing, because the article paints it like a sociological concept, not a theatre & media concept. So as it seems to me, readers who know about sociology, or whatever else, are looking at this article and saying "what is the point of yet another word for male-bonding?" While people with backgrounds in theatre and media recognize that it has less to do with "bromance in the real world" and more to do with stage and media productions. But at the same time, it is being used as a lay term for male-bonding when it shows up in pop-culture references to real people and not fictional ones. So, we have this problem where a theatre & media term is being applied to the real world, and so the article conflates the two uses of the word. I could also be completely wrong on this front, and there's some sort of unified bromance that I've overlooked because I simply am not well-read in media literature, so I hope I'm being constructive with this comment and not just blowing smoke. On the "keep, merge, delete" front, I'm still for keeping the article if it can be improved, and if it can't, I'm still for preserving what content has already been written as a merger with a stronger parent concept. Strangejames (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect - Suppose a popular TV show routinely called a dog a "barkie". Would we want a separate Wikipedia article titled Barkie that said about the same things as the existing Dog article, but called it a "barkie"? The synonym would belong in the Urban Dictionary, and so does "bromance". Furthermore, calling a friendship a "bromance" borders on claiming that the friends are closet cases. This might be true, but characterizing a relationship according to one's opinion is radically inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Ornithikos (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with what you've just said is that you've inadvertently emphasised that there is a difference between "bromance" and "friendship". If calling a "friendship" a "bromance" carries an additional connotation ("that the friends are closet cases") then "bromance" is clearly not the same as "friendship", and the two words are not synonyms. RomanSpa (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This turns out to be a real example as barkie takes us to the show which spawned the concept —— the All Barkie Dogville Comedies. This demonstrates that we do maintain such content and so the topic in question should not be a red link. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a redirect, which is what Ornithikos argued for. Samsara 20:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Male bonding. Not a sufficiently different scope to warrant a separate article. MoreTomorrow (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Silverseren. The idea of "bromance" being a thing has been the subject of gender studies research. Wincent77 (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Romantic friendship with possibly portions going to Homosociality and Male bonding--all three concepts are interlinked, and part of the connotation behind the term's existence is that in modern Western culture the friendship is so close that, as Ornithikos unintentionally hits upon, people around them may mistake them for "closet cases" due to its intensity and romantic tones...which, unlike suddenly changing the word used for Canis lupis, carries social consequences such as the risk of being subject to discrimination and gay bashing. Romantic friendship has the advantages of being a gender-neutral term, with wider opportunities for examples and precursors, and clearly indicates that what is being talked about is a relationship more intense than the term friendship normally indicates in English. Werhdnt (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The problem with the sources offered so far is that, for the purposes of this discussion, they're only primary sources. They don't discuss, on a scholarly or even informal level, whether either the word bromance or something it points to is something separate and significant from bonding, friendship or affection; they merely use the word. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. For example, the first source listed above, Caught in a Bad Bromance is a paper in an academic journal and analyses the concept in a scholarly way, e.g. "First, bromances mimic marriage and its burdens by privileging exclusivity and dyadic pairings. Second, bromances encourage heteronormativity, ...". As sources go, this is bang on target per the customary guideline. The page male bonding, by contrast, is comparatively poor. There is hardly any content and only one of its sources has the term in its title. Even that source seems quite weak in justifying the term as an article title: Material and Visual Cultures Beyond Male Bonding. So, bromance seems to be doing just fine as a notable title in scholarship. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect* to Romantic friendship. @Werhdnt has the right idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozarin (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Jozarin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep* I read this whole debate and find that silver siren's reasoning it being argued against by semantics and excessive wiki-lawyering. 71.55.24.101 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think my plan is, since everyone in this discussion seems to be caught up in how the article is currently written and its current relation to homosociality, to wait until after this AfD and this article is merged or deleted and then recreate a Bromance article that is specifically about the film/television genre of Bromance, which is what the vast majority of the scholarly sources seem to be treating it as. Silverseren^C 18:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, now that i'm thinking about it, it may be best for the Bromance page itself to be a disambiguation page so that it can link to all the different articles mentioned by others above and include a sentence description of them. That can include linking to my Bromance (genre) page i'll make at some point. I think that would be the best method to reducing confusion on what Bromance means and all the connected articles to it. Silverseren^C 18:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. In an ideal world, this article would be about the concept of bromance rather than about friendships between men. I think the arguments that this is a new word for something that already exist have something to them, and the article's sources are largely weak, with most of them being news/entertainment news documenting celebrity friendships rather than talking about "bromance" as a thing - so I can understand deleting. But I also think there might be an article in "why has this term developed now." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambiguation. The problem with redirecting is that there isn't a single obvious target. A disambiguation page can have a link to Wiktionary and links to the topics that readers will be looking for (Homosociality, bromantic comedy). gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I actually agree with Gobonobo that disambiguation would be most appropriate. The question that remains would still be where to move the current content to, though. And to which pages should it link? The page suggested for creation by Silver seren and Romantic friendship? What about Male bonding? I don't think we need to link to the latter due to it being a stub though. The reason I proposed disambiguation first was Silver serens suggesting bromance meant something completely different from what the page is currently about. PinkShinyRose (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I was having a hard time making up my mind about this AfD, but the suggestion of a disambiguation page pushed me to a weak keep. It suggests that there is no one clear target for a redirect. I am skeptical about articles that deal with neologisms lest Wikipedia be used to promote each new fad, but bromance seems well established on the pop culture scene, and it is likely that people will turn to Wikipedia for clearheaded information on what it is all about. "Bromance is a term that could refer to: friendship, mail bonding, ..." ignores the arguments of proponents and would not serve our readers well. The article can be much improved as many have suggested, but that discussion belongs on the article's talk page.--agr (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Bromance is simply a neologism for male friendships, especially popular in the tabloids and in describing movies. The movie genre information seems to belong in buddy movie and the male friendship in friendship or male bonding or some such. --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Slang term with limited usage. Article with many issues. The Proffesor (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As much as I dislike the fact that Randall Munroe may be remote-controlling this nomination through his comic followers (which equates to canvassing), I do agree that the "Characteristics" section is currently unsalvageable and should be deleted. Insofar as through its prominence, it tarnishes the rest of the article, I see two options: delete that section or replace the article with a redirect. Essentially, I'm willing to accept that bromance may have a raison d'etre as a meme/fad, but I also see that with the offending section removed, it borders on dictdef with, in that case, an overly long list of usage examples. There also may be insufficient WP:RS about this topic to allow a full article to be created at this time. I also vote for homosociality as the most appropriate redirect target. Perhaps in time, the new section there can be spun off into its own article as WP:RS become available. Samsara 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just look at how charged this discussion is, above. Encyclopedic topic, references, yes the term is a bit dumb but so what.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Redirect to a section of the several other articles that already cover this topic. If this is a genre of film, then make a separate article about the genre of film. --jag426 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Silver said, an article for the film genre would undoubtedly be warranted, even if the fad element of the term is considered, it would be significant in its impact on culture an media. Benjamin (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This term has widespread usage across a variety of reliable sources and the article consists of a lot more than just a dictionary definition; we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Randall. Nikthestunned 11:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the term has an informal tilt to it, the concept has broad usage and has several analytical aspects - which are reasonably referenced. I am aware of additional references, and I may try to keep adding. The article has had some work since the AfD opened, and I think as now referenced it is clear that bromance as a concept is reflective of a shift in "us collectively" in how "we" perceive and depict the theme, and also has aspects in relation to law, sexuality, and expressivity. I think that conflating the concept with romantic friendship badly misses the clearly referenced distinctions and cultural context of both articles - instead I linked from bromance to romantic friendship to pull in that historical background, as a partial match/equivalent. Some of the delete recommendations here have included the caveat that should a cultural aspect or a conceptual aspect be reliably sourced, things would be different. Although bromantic comedy is a substantial theme within bromance movies, it is a subgenre pertaining just to comedy movies within the overall bromance genre, which would be an awkward venue for encompassing the real life or social construction aspects of bromance. Although this article can definitely be further improved, there is no single obvious merge destination, and given the amount of sourcing here, an attempt at conflation from here to multiple destinations would be an impressive cost of labor. Please note that several references are chapter and book length analyses. I would have thought that help from additional eyes actively working on these would enhance the article.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC) updated FeatherPluma (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article barely cites any sources on the term itself, and is more focused on a description and example of the kind of relationship. Would be much more relevant under a generic term describing the relationship (i.e. male bonding). Magedq (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Granted it's an informal term, but it's received significant coverage over many years, and is encyclopedic. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well defined topic, well referenced article, appears to be more than a WP:DICDEF, I'm just not seeing any grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Several editors above discuss this "term" and mention it "has attained broad usage" or that it has "received significant coverage". But WP articles are supposed to be about concepts, not about terms. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary says, in an encyclopedia, "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing... should be merged". Of course, nuances in terminology should be treated in the merged article: "whore" and "prostitute" are synonyms and belong in the same article (Prostitution), but have different connotations, which are discussed in that article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and combine with homosociality which more or less could include this article that could discuss this same concept. 143.44.78.174 (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to male bonding or some other appropriate article. The notability of the term itself (as opposed to the broad concept) is a red herring and covered by WP:NOTDIC - I'd have said this was a better candidate for Wiktionary except that the nomination points out it's already there. No need for it here, just pointless duplication of other topics. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - or redirect. Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see the point of relisting this debate. Before the "RELIST" we had 27 Delete (6 of which were "delete or merge/redirect") 38 Keep (3 of which were "keep or merge/redirect") and 28 Merge/Redirect. There have been plenty of discussions based on policy/guidelines. It's clear that we don't remotely have a consensus, and further discussion is highly unlikely to produce one. There is a clear majority for Keep - and that's the default action in the event of us not achieving a consensus. It seems highly unlikely that a killer argument will emerge that'll overturn 60 to 70% of the !votes to form a consensus. No new arguments have appeared since about the first dozen responses...no surprising insights from policy/guidelines has emerged. People disagree solely on how they imagine the English speaking world uses the word - or whether the Wikipedia entry is anything beyond a dictionary definition...both arguments have been turned over and examined carefully.

We simply don't agree.

So it's over..."No consensus"...not gonna be a consensus. Wrap this up and move on. SteveBaker (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Delete/Redirect have a majority, as both have similar effect on the article: its content gets deleted. AFD is not a majority vote, but there's enough proponents of getting rid of this joke-of-an-article. YHBT. KiloByte (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At minimum, bromance is definitely a reasonable search term. Whether it deserves a standalone article or should redirect to friendship or male bonding is a question for the talk page, in my opinion, not AFD. Keep. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus SteveBaker, note that AfDs are not votes, they are discussions. If you read the "Keep" comments above, many of them are clearly saying that they believe that the term or the word is notable. For example, one Strong Keep says "What is being challenged by those advocating deletion is that the term "bromance" describes a new phenomenon; this is arguable, but the novelty of the descriptor is not."; or "Just because the word is dumb and people should stop using it doesn't mean the well-sourced article about said word should be deleted." Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, notability of a term does not mean that an independent article should appear under that title; cf. cinema, film, motion picture, movie -- each of these has its own nuance, but they're all about the same basic concept.

MZMcBride, I certainly agree that bromance is a reasonable search term. I'm not sure why you say that whether it should be redirect or independent article should be a question for the Talk page rather than the AFD -- after all, lots of AFDs (including this one) offer the option of Merge/Redirect. --Macrakis (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis: The talk page is the default and canonical collaborative space to discuss an article. I'd say that the articles for deletion process is focused primarily on deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that a merge/redirect discussion would be appropriate on the Talk page in the absence of an AFD. But once the article has been brought up in AFD, it is worth discussing a range of possibilities here. As WP:AFDFORMAT says: "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view." --Macrakis (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to male bonding. Bromance is a notable term, but this isn't a quality article. The male bonding article/stub is more straightforward, and a better jumping off point for related links. Maybe some content can be carried over, but I don't think celebrity examples, for example, are particularly appropriate. Mcavic (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to male bonding. Nothing new about bromance.—indopug (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - concept is clearly notable per per SilverserenC's references above; concept is clearly independent of friendship per academic literature mentioned by Fieari above. Multiple WP:RS sources use the term as a central concept, not an incidental one. Article quality issues can be addressed by a rewrite.Dialectric (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I don't see SilverserenC's references as relevant, because they talk about examples of the term, not definitions/explanations/descriptions. I haven't seen one non-paparazzi related reference in the whole lot (not even in the references in the actual article), and definitely nothing related to biological relationships. Male Bonding, Human bonding, Platonic love, Same-sex relationship do refer to these biological relationships in a much more holistic sense. If it doesn't have that kind of information, shouldn't it redirect to an article that does? It definitely shouldn't be considered an article in human inter-personal relationships without such information. Shashwat986 → talk 18:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This is just another term that is a subset of existing concepts, such as friendship. pschemp | talk 04:01, 26 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) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage that shows this material/trademark is notable, which means any effort of making this rather spammy article into something good futile Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As soon as the product gets rolled and discussed in papers and the news, an article can be written. Press releases and product brochures are not for Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It also seems like it has been recently promoted. SamuelDay1 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as above, fails GNG --Gaff (talk) 00:51, 26 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) 03:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GiantSnowman. Also, as a correction, the article's been axed twice, once as a csd-a7 delete and again as an expired prod, meaning this is the third time its been under the axe. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:04, 25 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) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitarth Bhat (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 biographical article appears to have been created for the purposes of self-promotion. There is a relationship with Mohit Raina (cousin) but notability here cannot be inherited, and there does not appear to be evidence that this article meets our standards for general notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fully agree with above mentioned reason of proposal-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:44, 25 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. Missvain (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone (humorist) (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 web writer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG/WP:CREATIVE. Concerns / proposal of a page rewrite from 2012 nomination were not addressed/executed. Sources in article still insufficient for stand-alone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:57, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't find any coverage about this person - except for a partial review of one of his books in the Washington Post. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 25 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 merge to Waukegan, Illinois. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waukegan Fire Department (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 procedural nomination only. This article had been redirected to Waukegan, Illinois in February 2007. After a recent discussion at RfD, I decided as the closer to let the article stand or fall here. I'm neutral on the question, at least for now, and will not be watching this page. BDD (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge briefly if any reliable sources show up. Siuenti (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with no prejudice to un-merging if enough material is found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
  
• Redirect Restore the redirect. Nothing worth merging. Run-of-the-mill fire department. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Waukegan, Illinois. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 26 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. Missvain (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seiha English Academy (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)

Google search puts the notability of this school in question, because the only non-primary sources I could find are self-published. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative delete Oricon customer satisfaction survey ranked this place at 3rd among other toddler English learning institutes [2], but that's the only one more independent source and definitely not enough. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a major player in the kids market, but the article does need outside sources.182.250.240.89 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that references will be difficult for that average wikipedian to manage, because they're mostly going to be in Japanese. That said, difficulty is not a reason to delete. This is clearly a large scale private school network. Individual local schools might not merit an article, but 400 schools under one name? That surely should. The article, as it stands, is pretty barebones and not great, but that just means it needs improvement. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Naog (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 fictional character Wgolf (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't verify that the character or the TV series exists outside Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. And suggest a (very non-speedy, at this point) speedy deletion on likely BLP grounds. There's zero evidence that any MTV program with the name given in this article exists. Given the nature of the content, I strongly suspect that this is a thinly-veiled attack page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-You can't do a BLP on a fictional character though. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At least one of the names mentioned is not fictional. It's possible that this is merely a hoax; alternatively, it's worth considering that this could be an A10-attack page merely dressed up as fiction. In either case, its eventual fate is hardly in question, only the timing of its removal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. The "Black Ugly Girls" TV series is non-existent and is also an attack page laced with fiction. Google lacked any reliable sources, making me conclude that she was imaginary. Snowager (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (I'm closing as Nom's withdrawn as with the greatest of respect He seems clueless to AFDs) / Per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kozí Vrbovok (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)

Hasn't been sourced for 8 1/2 years! Eeek! Lightspeed2012 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, why didn't you source it yourself then? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep. "Unreferenced" is not grounds for deletion, let alone "Eek". Wikipedia verifiability policy is "all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". A glance at a map is enough to show that this is a genuine town, so no sane person is going to challenge that, and there is no contentious statement of any kind on this page of the kind that would bring WP:BLP into play. Mogism (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - WP:BEFORE wasn't followed at all [3][4] (There's tons of books on this area but I can't speak Slovakian so not sure how relevant they actually are), Being unreferenced is not a valid reason to delete, It needs some work doing but IMHO deleting is pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep for reasons indicated above. I think the article should be improved, but deleted is misguided. Why are we wasting our time on this? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleting this article would be a waste when it wouldn't be too much trouble in sourcing it. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like I made a mistake :/ . @Dr. Blofeld: You're the one who created the article. @Davey2010: I should of read WP:BEFORE. @Mogism: You do have a point. Thanks, I've gained knowledge from this mistake and I will apply it in the future.  :) Lightspeed2012 21:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the article I'd only been here three months, in fact it was a lot longer before I actually learned how to reference!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Understood. Myself I don't know most of Wikipedia's policies. But you've been doing major contributions to Wikipedia! I hope we are on good terms now. :) Lightspeed2012 21:54, 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) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No notability. Axakov (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion page created without the afd2 template and was never listed on a log page. I've fixed this--no comment on the nom itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep, obviously notable enough that you found the article, created an account, and posted for deletion. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no reason given for deletion. The stub has two good references. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no reasons for nom or deletion are given. as per Bearian the article has two sources and is currently a stub that we can work on.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a quick search on her name provides ample evidence that she is notable. The article needs improvement, someone should expand the article on her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 25 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. WP:SNOW. No serious dispute about the notability of the concept, and the IP's delete comment does not rise above WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queer theology (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 procedural nomination. An IP editor redirected the article to Marcella Althaus-Reid with the rationale, "term used by only one author, this "field" simply does not exist and is hence not notable". I reverted, but started this discussion. I am not actually advocating deletion or keeping at this time. LadyofShalott 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of my Googe Books search, some of which I have listed in a further reading section, I now say strong keep; this subject is notable. LadyofShalott 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since a basic Google Books search turns up at least a half-dozen books by different authors with the exact phrase "queer theology" as part of their titles,[5][6][7][8][9][10], and Google Scholar yields 666 hits for the phrase, the "used by only one author" contention falls flat. This certainly appears to be a legitimate subject for an article, unless it's already subsumed in a broader related topic like LGBT and religion topics or one of the subtopics listed there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear keep. While I wouldn't go off the search results alone, as the sources would need to be reliable, it is clear that the topic is notable and discussed in reliable sources. Synonyms like "gay theology" are also used. Article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP. HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that numerous other authors have been shown to discuss this (some at least with academic publishers), can you please elaborate? Are they all bunkum in your opinion? LadyofShalott 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources cited by Arxiloxos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep no statement by AfD postert or indication of topic not being notable, and IP editors vandalize articles all the time, their actions should not demand discussions, but should be reverted and ignored. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LGBT and religion topics. This topic simply does not exist as a field of study, it's just queer people doing theology – should we have articles on queer biology, queer philosophy, queer logic, queer metaphysics? No of course not, and this should be no exception. Read the article, it says nothing about the topic actually existing, it's just queer authors inventing a term to be edgy and try and get themselves funding by making up their own "specialisations". If someone could provide me a definition of "queer theology" that isn't just a restatement of the term, I'd be amazed. Those arguing to keep this page as is and not redirect need to demonstrate what it is that differentiates this page from LGBT and religion topics. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is clearly notable as a specific form of theology, as reliable sources show. Also, one of the top theology institutes in the world, Harvard Divinity School, offers a course on it - [11]. This one is pretty obvious. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:52, 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 2009 Thai Division 2 League North Eastern Region. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Udon Thani F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that WP:NSEASONS doesn't have to apply. As a guideline it does. This is a club that plays in a non-fully professional league, which lies at third level (regional) of Thai football. Previous consensus is that clubs that do not play in FPLs should not have individual season articles unless they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. This stat heavy article fails to do that. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to league season page, as there is no need for a stand-alone page for such a low-level team. The game scores are probably an appropriate part of a league season article (would need the games involving other teams too, of course). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, from WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect per the above. The amount of prose in relation to the amount of stats in this article is clearly too little. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to league season page. Several other season pages were recently merged in recent AFDs. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Udon Thani F.C. season, etc. Nfitz (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS. This club is in the 3rd level of Thai football, which definitely isn't a top professional league. Tavix |  Talk  15:44, 26 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) 18:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Night at The Palais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have searched and this seems of dubious notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They have released 32 live albums and this one does not seem particularly notable compared to the others. ~Excesses~ (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that logic, 31 articles should be deleted, as they aren't as notable as the most notable article. Notability is established by meeting policy, not how x article compares to y article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The gig (and hence album) was important enough to attract attention in the national media and I have expanded the article from sources in The Guardian, The Independent, Record Collector and AllMusic. From that I conclude that WP:NALBUMS has been met. I appreciate Mark E Smith calling Gary Lineker "the man from Walkers" onstage is not particularly encyclopedic, but that's just who he is and it does make me raise a smile. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the performance seems to have been of some historical significance, but only one source (#3) is really about the album itself. A second such source would seal it, but I think the album is probably still notable enough for an article, just barely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to meet the GNG, in my judgment, though further expansion would be appreciated. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ritchie333 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Meets GNG, and I'd say the sources given by Ritchie333 satisfy WP:NALBUMS in a situation like this where the event and the recording are hard to separate out. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's inability to find sources isn't a good reason to delete articles. Clearly satisfies notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 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) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a Notable Company Bentogoa (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its simply promotional, hence deserve no place on wikipedia.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Possible WP:CSD G11 candidate as a spam article. No secondary sources to indicate notability either. Aerospeed (Talk) 03:25, 26 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) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:03, 25 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. Missvain (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't think this individual is notable based on lineage — her grandfather was a king, but her mother was merely a princess. As for sources backing up other claims of notability, those don't seem to exist. We have a couple of things on the Romanian Royal Family's site (i.e., not independent); passing mention in a no-name newspaper; directory cruft; and passing mention in an article the main subjects of which are Dominic von Habsburg and Bran Castle. In other words, the subject is notable neither by lineage nor by sourcing, and the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Notability is not inherited. Cavarrone 07:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a listing of all members of all royal families.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 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) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested Prod restored after request at WP:REFUND. On the face, the subject reads as a Session musician for several artists/performers of notability. Considering the Specific Notability Guideline WP:MUSICBIO, I'm not seeing a substantiated claim of notability. Falling back to WP:GNG there's a bunch of interesting prose, but the sources do not back up the claims. We have 4 categories of references: Sites that are dead, Sites that do not mention the subject, Sites that list the subject (but in a very generic database maner), and interviews/ghostwrites of the subject.

In short, I'm not convinced that the subject's notability has been proven to merit a article here. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the others in this discussion. On the basis of notability WP:N the article should be deleted. The sources are lacking, and the only contributor is the subject. I feel that this page is being used as a tool for self promotion. Pantherjag (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing the notability. The article is enormous and very detailed, but the sources are too weak for a keep. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 25 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. Missvain (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Reflections: The Best of Crimson Glory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources, google search yields no results, suspected hoax article. Mika1h (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. Possible hoax per nom. As an aside, it appears the band did put out a compilation box set under the title In Dark Places a few years ago, which isn't mentioned in their article. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 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 Speedy Deleted. Definition of slang term in foreign language; no references, recreated after prior speedy deletion without explaining why speedy deletion was inapprppriate. --Trödel 14:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snoppe (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-English slang definition. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 13:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 EAFF East Asian Cup Preliminary Competition Round 2 squads (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)

Unsourced article listing participants and their stats in a competition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS.- MrX 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC) - MrX 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability, not a notable list. GiantSnowman 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom blocked, Thanks to everyone who's fixed his delightful edits!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. John International University (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 information on our page continually is edited by a third party with incorrect information, which is hurtful to our organization. The text they are adding and altering are opinion based. This untrue information is negatively impacting the reputation of the university. We have attempted to contact the editors but they will not respond or stop. Due to this, this page must be deleted for good. ClintonElamSJIU (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close This is an encyclopedia, not a private website. If you can not handle that then mothball your account, otherwise deal with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Speedy close I presume the nom is talking about the St. John International University#Loss of Degree-Granting Authority, which was repeatedly blanked since January. This is a content issue over a clearly notable subject, and AfD is not the place to end a dispute like that. I must also note that the talk page of the article was never used to discuss the issue. As a reference, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close to keep The nominator has already been blocked. I edited the article to lift out the worst puffery added by people at the "university", but to keep all the factual information (ie the very information the nominator wanted to delete).Jeppiz (talk) 13:19, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCUL (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)

To me it seems like it (was) only a small group of bicycle rides on strange bikes. The groups doesn't appear to be notable. It's really hard to find some sources. After a search I found two 1 (regional news site) and 2 (bicycle fan website). Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. SCUL is primarily active in Boston, but also in Maine and Rhode Island. This article was in rather poor shape, but there's plenty of material in reliable sources to fix it up. I've added several references to the article that should establish notability, particularly Spiegel and this book. SCUL was also featured on an episode of the PBS series Design Squad. The audio for the WBUR piece also goes into much more detail than the brief description on the linked webpage. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 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) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I have searched the usual reliable sources for Bollywood actresses - according to the article "an Indian Hindi film actress" - but there are no mentions of a person of that name. Indeed Bollywood Hungama has no record for this female actor. In addition, I can find no mention in reliable sources that suggest the movies that Ms Negi is asserted to have acted in meet the notability guidelines for films. Shirt58 (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; appears to not be verifiable, much less notable. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Did not find any suitable sources. Ready to change my vote though if some one comes up with proper sources. Have also strong doubt on the category Maullywood cinema which appears to be an Original Research. Does Maullywood cinema really exist and if yes whether it is notable enough? Lakun.patra (talk) 04:26, 25 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) 18:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Detroit (The Stooges 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)

I can't find any valid references outside of a DVD Talk review and a brief, fleeting mention in a biography book. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - expanded with references; notable release.  Gongshow   talk 19:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the expansion work done by Gongshow. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as expanded. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient sources obviously exist. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 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 Could be a redirect..or a merge. You guys decide on the talk pages.. If you chose to propose a merge please do so on the talk pages of the appropriate articles. Missvain (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Destruction (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)

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge to The Stooges discography. Please consider alternatives to deletion before bringing articles to AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fadak (TV channel) (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 Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC) More content of the article don't have any sources. A few of them have, but their accuracy is controversial. Because of that the notability of the article is imprecise. According to Wikipedia:Notability, Only being one of the TV channels (or being famous) does not mean that is notable. So it should be deleted.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The WP:GNG seems to be covered; even something as simple as a Google News search for Fadak, Fadak channel and Fadak TV reveal coverage across a wide range of sources (Press TV, Middle East Forum, Al Monitor, The Economist, Al Arabiya The Daily Mail, etc.) spanning over multiple unrelated controveries associated with the station such as instances of hate speech, support for terrorism and political conflict in the Mideast. While I am not sure what specific criterion a news organization might fall under, this Fadak station does seem to bear mildly significant, sustained coverage across at least three years and would also seem to satisfy WP:ORG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteAt wikipedia article, We have to be careful that being notable doesn't mean being famous. The Notability must be verifiable and this is proven by the use of reliable sources in articles But there isn't any source at the article that established the notability.If there are reliable sources, why not have been used of them at the article? As far as I know, there isn't any contents that is prohibited at wikipedia.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck out @Samaneh-davoudi:'s !vote above, as they are the nominator. -- Sam ^Sing! 10:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteFadak is not notable enough to warrant its own article. The searches carried out above by MezzoMezzo shows Fadak with various qualifiers getting between 37 and 136 results. Other random news channels from the category international news channels such as Al-Nile, eNCA and Kompas TV get between 35,000 to 250,000 hits on google news. The channel is simply not notable enough and giving it, its own article is free advertising. Mbcap (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per searches for: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThere are several satellite channel in the world and all of them are not important. Several channel are local and are for specific people or religious. The Fadak is not notable channel and this is for promoting a negative ideas about Muslim and defamation towards religious and historic characters. Also, there is not any source at the article and It seems to writing according to personal idea.Charm4Fasl (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be enough coverage, just needs a lot of cleanup. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 08:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the Fadak in wikipedia and you see many pages with this name but only one of them is about Fadak, TV channel. In google search is like this. Fadak is the name of village, Islamic center, shopping, school and so on.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:35, 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.