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. KTC (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Arnone (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)

Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniella Alma

Subject fails WP:FILMMAKER; appears to be known for creating one or two short films screened at indie film events. Available coverage on these (present in the article on Daniella Alma, see also related AFD above) appears to be from self-published or obscure review sites, and the coverage is primarily about the films rather than the person. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like these were created in conjunction with the release of these films, but they all fail WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 15 January 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The result was keep (wrong venue, withdrawn by nominator). --Jakob (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

:User:Youngsnip1212 (edit | [[Talk:User:Youngsnip1212|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and is completely unreferenced. ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Withdraw as a mistake, it's a user page not an article. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Adair (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)

Appears to be non-notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced, and author removed CSD. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:20, 10 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:NACADEMICS. Tgeairn (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is the 2nd nomination of this article. At the time of the first nomination, BIO and notability guidelines were significantly lighter. See in particular the cleanup work by Borock, Drmies, Zambelo, Kitfoxxe, and others. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article does not assert any notability. All it says is that he was an expert witness is a few court cases and wrote a few articles in scholarly publications. Borock (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked over the references, and looks like Borock is right. If we set the standard for notability to include this guy, we've have to include all lawyers, physicians, scientists... who have ever been quoted in the lay press. That is setting the bar for notability too low IMO. BakerStMD T|C 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage found ABOUT him, just a quote here or there. Nothing found at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 17 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Alma (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)

Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Arnone

Subject fails WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. The references appear to be self-published or otherwise user-generated content that provide coverage primarily of the films rather than the actress. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. As mentioned in nomination, references are on one minor short film she was in as opposed to the actress herself. BenLinus1214^talk 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unfortunately no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 January 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) Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) @ 20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Sourisseau (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)

Average Charlie Hebdo contributor, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, a search yields mainly Facebook, linkedin and similar stuff. Brief mentions due to recent shooting, virtually no RS to compile a meaningful bio. Brandmeister^talk 21:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this man is known as "Riss" and is one of the main cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, he is worthy of inclusion and is known in France ( see his French Wiki ). His illustrations appear often on the cover of Hebdo see [1] HesioneHushabye (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw his, but I doubt that merely being a satirical cartoonist warrants an inclusion. The French Wiki basically only lists his works. Brandmeister^talk 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are missing the point that he was shot in the meeting and one of the main cartoonists of this magazine Charlie Hebdo, and a known cartoonist in France with his own Wiki to chronicle his many 'works', that appear on the cover of the magazine often as I linked above. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If he was not notable before he sure is now, but sounds like he was notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability as cartoonist and as terrorism victim. Hektor (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily meets WP:BASIC even prior to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Sam ^Sing! 18:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close discussion - Obviously notable. RoyalMate1 03:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, close discussion, and a stern warning for the editor who proposed the deletion* - Obviously notable as a published author and famous cartoonist, even before he was shot by Islamic terrorists for drawing famous Charlie Hebdo covers like "The Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets", and the one of the pig. But now has 22,000 results for "Charlie Hebdo Riss" on Google News, 3,520 for "Laurent Sourisseau", 3,270 for "koran stop bullets". Has 4 million people marching in the street in protest against the attack on him, and world leaders praising (and decrying) him. Carl Kenner (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, like others have said, enough sources to show notability, and definitely now after the shooting. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While by no means the gold standard, the fact that the subject is covered by a few of the other languages speaks volumes. Juno (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of unconfirmed exoplanets (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)

If an exoplanet is unconfirmed, there is no reason it should be given any prominence in Wikipedia. There is no need for a list of unconfirmed objects of a specific type, since many of these (if not most) will turn out to be false detections. While this list is clearly in good-faith, it simply gives undue prominence to something which is not even confirmed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I agree. How can you state something that doesn't even exist? Also, Kepler has detected >3,000 exoplanets with the existence chance 50% or less. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 01:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree a list is a bit pointless as it is a bit dynamic and just shows the amount of human knowlege at any point in time. However an article on unconfirmed exoplanets may be useful, and can explain why they are unconfirmed. Perhaps a list of notable unconfirmed or disconfirmed planets could go here - if there are any. I can think of the ones around Barnard's Star as an example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (with maintenance) - Although I see how such an article appears a bit redundant and contradictory to Wikipedia's goals, some of these planets are probably well-known in the scientific community and are notable. I like some of the ideas proposed in the comment above, and perhaps the list could be shortened and uncluttered a little bit. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Article-ify. Nom expresses my exact thoughts on this as a list, but Graeme's suggestion that it would be well suited as a true article that explains the why and how seems like a very good idea. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As of today, exoplanets.org lists just over 3300 unconfirmed exoplanets, mainly because of the huge amount of data from the Kepler telescope. It's possible that most will not turn out to be planets. The reason they are unconfirmed is fairly mundane: follow-up observations are needed, either with another method (radial velocity) or to get additional orbits to confirm the Kepler transits. I'm not convinced a separate article is needed to explain this...why not just a section in the exoplanet article or methods of detection article? As for a list, I'm not convinced at all. Are there "notable unconfirmed" exoplanets? Please provide enough to make a list... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Barnard's Star has a section on the false planets (as are a couple of the other Star-related articles I glanced at), and the rest of that list will either be rejected as non-stars or written up as proper articles. Not sure if it would be worth adding anything to the (already substantial) methods of detecting exoplanets article. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not, technically, the creator of this list, as all I did was break it off from a wider article ages ago, so I don't really have any territorial attachment to it. I have hoped for some time that it might be expanded by the Wikipedia exoplanet team, but it hasn't happened. I'm not convinced, however, that simple deletion is the wisest course of action. There are a number of notable stars (such as Barnard's Star, Tau Ceti and Betelgeuse) that have been or are suspected of having planets, many of which were notable "false starts" in exoplanet research. It might be a good idea to list those. Serendi^podous 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep on this one for reasons outlined by Serendipodous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "notable false starts in exoplanet research" is a section of an article that I would probably read. The rest of the unconfirmed? I know I've been writing "needlessly duplicate" several times lately, and this list falls under that. Other websites, notably exoplanets.org, already provide this information with far more utility that this list will ever have. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think an article such as history of exoplanet discoveries (which I think would be a noteworthy topic) could easily have this information, if somebody wishes to create it. No need for this separate indiscriminate list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment Just because these planets are unconfirmed exoplanets does not mean that they are inherently non-notable. The list could definitely be cut down to remove some of the more obscure suggestions on the list, and it may not satisfy notability because they are unconfirmed. BenLinus1214^talk 22:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BenLinus1214:, Nobody is saying that unconfirmed exoplanets are inherently non-notable; for example, Alpha Centauri Bb is quite clearly notable. We're saying that a list is the wrong way to go about describing them, and gives them undue weight, thus violating policy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @StringTheory11:, I see where you're coming from. It does make more sense, as you mentioned above, to possibly create an article on history of exoplanet discoveries, and I definitely think that there is some salvageable content on this page. (Note: I have changed my opinion for now).
• Delete. I agree that some of those sites that were mentioned do a better job, adn all the lists have "this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" underneath them. However, there is definite potential for a page on notable unconfirmed or disproven exoplanets (as has been said before).Iwilsonp (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As is, the list is terribly incomplete, and if completed, it would be obfuscated by the sheer quantity of information. Creating the page Unconfirmed exoplanets and describing common situations and notable examples may be a better course of action. Piboy51 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 17:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up and Dance (Walk the Moon song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, does not meet WP:NSONG. That guideline specifically says that simply being listed in rankings is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; there must be substantial coverage in independent sources. Bringing to AFD because it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (the list of rankings is arguably a claim to notability, even if it's not a good one) and PROD was removed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Notable as charting in the United States in a multiple of genre charts like Adult Alternative Songs, Hot Rock Songs, Alternative Songs as Top 10 as well as the Hot 100 at number 75. Also charting internationally in Sweden and the Netherlands. As for lack of references, I have now included five media references and reviews of the song. Please refer to amendments included on the page. werldwayd (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained above, WP:NSONG (Wikipedia's guideline on what makes songs count as notable or not) specifically says that charting alone is not sufficient to indicate notability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Due to the sources recently added to the article, as well as this and this. These should be significant enough. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable song that has charted in different countries. This article only started recently, therefore it is stubbed. Some songs that are not even charted can be featured articles, so why not? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:37, 14 January 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.  Sandstein  11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Israelite Campaigns (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)

Still unreferenced although article was created in 2011 Editor2020, Talk 04:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUST? StAnselm (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the reason that the sources have not been provided, and probably will not be provided, is the archaeological consensus that an Israelite invasion and conquest of Canaan did not happen. Editor2020, Talk 05:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the vast majority of scholars don't think the conquest per book of Joshua ever happened - see that article for sources. Also this article is poorly defined - what exactly is "early"? Plus of course it has no sources and is in any case extremely thin.PiCo (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PiCo, I added sources, see below or in article. Articles don't need to be about things that actually happened (cc: Editor2020), we have articles on fiction, the question is whether there are reliable secondary sources that address this as a specific topic, right? ProfGray (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing substantive here, and nothing worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete let's not forget that WP:MUST is just an essay; it does say "it's enough to show that those sources exist". This fails WP:V and it's already discussed at History of ancient Israel and Judah. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Changing to Keep based on the excellent work of ProfGray and Editor2020. It still needs work but it looks far better. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chris Troutman . I do think the topic can be verified by the sources I've added below. I've looked at the linked article and it doesn't really give this much treatment. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Currently, this article is based on the Biblical narrative alone. Hence, its content could be inserted into (is that a merge?) Israelites#Biblical Israelites, which is a synopsis of that section of the Hebrew Bible. However, this could easily be a Keep because this topic can be based on such sources as:

• Albright, William F. "The Israelite conquest of Canaan in the light of archaeology." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1939): 11-23.
• Wright, G. Ernest. "Archaeological News and Views: Hazor and the Conquest of Canaan." The Biblical Archaeologist 18.4 (1955): 106-108.
• Van Seters, John. "Joshua's campaign of Canaan and near eastern historiography." Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 4.2 (1990): 1-12.
• Dever, William G. Who were the early Israelites, and where did they come from?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
• Hess, Richard S. "The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua." Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (2008): 29-30.
• Kennedy, Titus Michael. "The Israelite conquest: history or myth?: an achaeological evaluation of the Israelite conquest during the periods of Joshua and the Judges." (2011). http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/5727
• Levin, Yigal. "3 The wars of Joshua." War and Peace in Jewish Tradition: From the Biblical World to the Present (2012): 37.

In other words, this is a notable topic in the academic study of the Hebrew Bible, so maybe the article can be improved instead of deleted? If you don't mind, I could add the sources and a sentence, but I don't want to write it up at the moment. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits. Okay, I added this lead sentence: "Biblical narratives of an Israelite conquest have long been a subject of religious inquiry and, in the 20th century, a debate over the archaeological evidence and historicity of the putative conquest. " Also added the 6 sources above. Is that sufficient to Keep it?

Btw, in a few weeks I start teaching this Hebrew Bible course , so maybe y'all could persuade my students to improve this or similar Hebrew Bible stubs? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another 13 reliable secondary sources on this topic. See there. Should these be in alpha, chronological, or topical order? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what this course actually is? You've put a lot of work into it, but I'm not sure I'd ever use Wikipedia as the basis for a university course. Anyway, the point of bibliographies on Wikipedia is to allow readers to verify information - so they're the books etc used in the article, not a general reading list. You could possibly get your students to collaborate on a new article on the Conquest narrative - we don't seem to have one at the moment - but "early conquest" is too narrow. Also, be careful of your sources - Albright and Wright, for example, are well out of date. PiCo (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might be right that "early" is unnecessary, but that's a renaming not a deletion question. For sure, Albright and Wright should be used only to report on the shift in scholarly assessments. I just added the sources to show Notability and WP:RS for the article. I don't know which would be refs for the article body and which in a Further Reading section. I'd be glad to start a Talk thread with you about the course. Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per PiCo and Cullen328. This article is nothing but a title, a sentence, and a reading list – which is not an article by Wikipedia standards. The title of the page does not reflect the lead or the purpose of the article at all. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect into both Book of Joshua#Themes and genre and/or Book of Judges#Themes and genre as that is where this "early conquest" is primarily recorded. There is yet time for better more independent articles such as this as it seems WP is neither ready nor mature enough for a full presentation of the topic that gives Biblical accounts "equal time" with extreme anti-religious hodge-podge bigotry. Keep [article has subsequently been brought up to speed.] WP is not here to "prove" or "disprove" the veracity of the Hebrew Bible and the Tanakh based on vague and purely secular-oriented prejudiced POV theories that reek of WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This article consists of an introduction; a stub on Ai; and a long bibliography. Te bibliography might be useful if it were supporting something but essentially it has no substantive content. I gather that there is difficulty in relating the Biblical account to archaeology, or at least the accepted archaeological interpretation. Accordingly, there is nothing to use apart from Joshua. I would love to able to support the existence of an article such as this, but the present one cannot be allowed to survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More analysis based on sources. In response to Peterkingiron and others (cf. Yoninah) requesting substantive content, I have added a few paragraphs so far using the reliable sources. Let me know what you think, thanks! Diff here [2] thanks ProfGray (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this is clearly a topic of academic and religious study, and archaeology and there is a specific plan to expand it.Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag as incomplete. The historical (as opposed to historiographic) content of the article is far too brief. Ai was not the whole of the campaign. However the detailed discussion on the historicity of the accounts is well worth having. This is something that cannot conveniently be accommodated in an article on the book of Joshua. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has been transformed since it was first brought to AfD. It is a topic of academic and archaeological study and debate, and text and sources now reflect that. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the article should be expanded, it's notable and has enough sources from archaeologists and scholars to justify its existence.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Rugby League Competition (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)

Unreferenced articles about a regional sports organization which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NRU - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Included in this discussion are the following articles

2012 British Columbia Rugby League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bayside Sharks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Burnaby Lake Rugby Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

•Delete Neither the League nor the Teams appear notable. Article lack third party references. Even the vast majority of the fields in which these teams play in do not appear notable. --I eat BC Fish (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (Keep) — The Bayside Sharks article says it supplies international players. That meets the WP:RU notability criteria. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:24, 6 January 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) 17:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jat clans of Uttar Pradesh (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)

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1891 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. Many similar lists have been deleted in recent months, including this one. Sitush (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOT. Sam ^Sing! 23:22, 6 January 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. Michig (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails General notability guidelines and likely self promotion. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources are provided to show why he's notable. I also share a concern the page's auther, Evewaller (talk · contribs), is related to the subject. -- Calidum 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a long standing journalist and diarist for one of the most respected newspapers in the UK and who appears in a whole bunch of news and book hits if you use the right search terms. I've added coverage from a couple to give the article a boost. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So he's been doing his job at a decent company for a long time. As a journalist, his name will appear in print against his work. But have there been multiple, authoritative articles written about him? FunkyCanute (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, quite a few, such as the four I added the other day. I mean, the New Statesman source has his name in the title! Calling The Times, one of the most longest established British newspapers (despite Rupert Murdoch trying desparately to bugger things up) "a decent company" shows alarming naivety. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Barr (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)

IP removed PROD tag without addressing any of the issues. Article has zero third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Aoidh (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Article needs better sourcing, but given the number of roles already listed here, this isn't a small set for someone who is still a teenager. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't a set that meets WP:NACTOR either. Merely being in a large number of minor roles at a young age is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What does your SCARE CAPS actually say? "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I'd see Shameless, This is England 88 and Hollyoaks as significant productions, and his role within each as adequate individually to make them valid per NACTOR. Of course he's not Meryl Streep, but he's not doing bad for a career so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant role is the part you missed, not merely being in a series of productions. This individual does not have that, especially when it cannot even be verified given the comment below. "Not doing bad" is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and what he's done at his age is only a consideration of sources note this as significant in some way, and that hasn't happened. His age is irrelevant, and the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR in even the most basic sense. Also given that this is a BIO article sourcing is critical; lack of sourcing means there shouldn't be an article at all, given that there isn't a single reliable source even so much as verifying what's in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

There is a mystery over Ryan Barr´s entries in IMDB - he seems to be in the casts of This is England '88, Top Dog, Hollyoaks and Shameless, but the name of the role he is playing in each of these is blank. In addition it has proved impossible to find out anywhere the names of the roles he plays in these (and other) dramas. There is a concern that there is some hoaxing going on here. Can anyone shed any light on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandekafsh (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not shown as an actor in any of our lists of Hollyoaks characters. He does, though, appear on the end of a long list of fictional characters in the main Hollyoaks article: Noyster (talk), 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Helens seem to think that he turned their christmas lights on. OTOH, an aspiring actor ought to be employing better PR to increase his visible presence. I've no objection to delete on the basis that verification is being more awkward than it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Brosnan (actor) (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)

Brosnan doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Any coverage on him is essentially because of his father. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While I understand where the nominator is coming from, I'd have to say keep. He has acted in a number of movies. Perhaps most, if not all coverage, is because of his father. Regardless, it is coverage from secondary, independent sources. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete significance of coverage matters and this article has not much to stand on. I tried the search tools, too. There are some acting appearances, but arguably not enough to live up to WP:NACTOR. No prejudice against recreation in the future. Hekerui (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED + WP:NACTOR - Being a son or daughter of a famous actor doesn't grant you a free pass to an article, Like this BLP there's no evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I was linked to this deleted page from a movie article (UFO/Alien Uprising). To be fair, I was curious if he was Pierce Brosnan's son, and sure enough he is. The discussion here is amusing, if not a bit sad, but in the end it seems unfair. Sean has an IMDB page with a detailed bio (albeit the beginning has a weird focus on lineage), plenty of credits, and 4 awards. Google also categorizes him as an actor in their search categories. Perhaps being an actor's kid doesn't make you an actor, but it also shouldn't disqualify you from credits you've earned. Either way, there are Wikipedia articles that mention this person acting in movies with broken links because of a debate over whether he's an actor or not. Feels sus. 2603:8080:700:C160:5D5F:6C57:72FD:1815 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2023 (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. KTC (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanaz tabatabae (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)

If he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, I couldn't find it. Persian readers may have access to something I'e missed. Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, Not documented. Deletion is the right choice.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214^talk 22:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldn't say "not documented": his name does appear in a few Persian sources. However, unless someone who knows Persian can tell if the mentions are anything important, I'll go with delete, since there are no other sources. --Jakob (talk) 23:29, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen G. Alter (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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Creator removed notability tag applied by Animalparty. Prod was contested by creator but no reason given in edit summary or talk page. Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two books published from Johns Hopkins University Press should be enough for history faculties. His 2005 work is notable as first "full-length study" of Whitney, (the greatest American Sanskritist of 19th century). His other work which concerns Darwin has got fiveseven reviews (now added to the article) in JSTOR, sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR. Solomon7968 14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also the nominator keeps on putting back the notability tag even after the article is up here (see page history). If the article is kept the admin/non-admin closing this should perhaps remove the tag. Solomon7968 17:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Solomon7968, you can just tag someone like I have tagged you here, I find that very useful. I explained my reasons for retaining the notability tag until a consensus is reached in my edit summary. At the moment, its notability is in question so it should remain there, plus it makes it more likely for a member of the Notability team to spot it and work on it. No advantages to taking it off before any consensus has been reached. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what you want. If the Afd closes as no consensus, then also the tag should not be there as there is no consensus whether he is notable or not. And I don't believe articles get improved by members of the "Notability team". Solomon7968 06:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been quite clear with what I want - notability tag left on until consensus is reached. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- While I know little of the subject, these sound like significant works in the history of linguistics. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (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.  Sandstein  11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO; group scene awards don't count, and all others are nominations. refimprov tag has sat for seven years. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AVN Award winner. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG; I have rewritten the article and added several reliable sources. There is mainstream media coverage of the subject over a twenty-year span. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - She fails WP:PORNBIO which states "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration" - All awards that I can see are scene related so meh Delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No serious argument that the subject passes PORNBIO. Aside from minimal coverage when her underage status was found out, the other "coverage" is really no more than passing mentions in listings like "other underage pornstars included ..." This puts us in BLP1E territory, and I don't see either that event or the very limited subsequent coverage as sufficient to sustain a BLP here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - On my god ... Me and You agree on something for once - It may snow tomorrow now . –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HW, is this what you're referring to? Because that isn't a "passing mention" for Quinn. That argument would be true in reference to Kristara Barrington, Ali Moore and Nikki Charm in that same article, but not Quinn. And just because the article isn't entirely about her doesn't mean it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, which states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". And WP:BLP1E states "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E)". Media coverage of Quinn is persistent, it began in 1991 and as recently as 2011-2013, articles about her have continued to be published. BLP1E also states that it "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals" and Quinn is not a low-profile individual because she returned to the porn industry afterward. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog source in a BLP; it does nothing but regurgitate cursory details from long ago without updating anything; and the only information it provides beond the 1E is that subject has breast implants. That's not significant coverage or persistent coverage. And arguing that BLP1E doesn't apply to someone who left then returned to being a sex worker has neither logic nor policy support behind it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to WP:NEWSBLOG, it's an acceptable source. 2. Again, WP:GNG does not require her to be the main topic of the source material. 3. She actually is the main topic of all the other mainstream sources in the article. 4. How can you think that coverage of her 22 years later is not persistent? 5. According to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile". Aside from her interviews on Hard Copy and The Howard Stern Show [3], no one who wants to be low-profile performs in pornographic films. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She passes the general notability guidelines and not as BLP1E. She was featured in the book about the murder of Christopher Walsh, Nobody Walks, as the girlfriend of one of the murderer. A chapter is also devoted to her devirginising some fan as part of a publicity stunt in in Embedded. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't see the kind of media coverage that justifies inclusion. Several sweeps of news sources did not yield much that suggests AQ meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources on Alexandra Quinn can be found on newslibrary.com. They're easier to find if you search for "Diane Purdie Stewart" (her real name) or "Alexandria Quinn" (with an "i") instead of "Alexandra Quinn". There's also a The Commercial Appeal article on Quinn which you can find by searching for "Diane Colazzo". That article was published on October 30, 1993 and is unrelated to her underage scandal. Morbidthoughts also provided several sources on Quinn above, which are also unrelated to the underage scandal. Quinn passes GNG and is not a BLP1E. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to provide links, also hone the current article to remove the dubious sources, if these things are done I'll reevaluate my choice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to meet WP:GNG through industry coverage for her multiple award nominations. Mainstream media is nice, but is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that someone in the adult industry would be covered by adult industry media. PORNBIO is a supplement to the GNG and does not supersede it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
• Comment. An obvious attempt to evade the "overwhelming" RFC consensus that those porn award nominations do not count toward establishing notability. In addition, notability policy/guidelines require reliable, independent sourcing to establish notability, and press releases and self-sourced databases are not accepted as establishing notability in any other context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:47, 11 January 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. Whether and where to redirect it to is a decision best taken editorially by subject-matter experts, I'm not sure that we have a consensus here for that.  Sandstein  11:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcanum corallinum (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 entry itself contains gibberish and no discernable chemical would be so produced. It's been an orphan since orphan detection (2009). The only reference is now a dead link. I do not object to "alchemy/alternative medicine" pages, but this page doesn't actually contain any information at all about whether the substance named exists. Riventree (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alchemy.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Significantly Expand Expand and Link Keep The New Encyclopedia; or, Universal dictionary ofarts and sciences [sic]. Pharmacopceia Bateana, click the hypertext to go to page 306. It appears, through some further research, that this is a very antiquated description of how to produce Mercury(II) oxide.^[1] I would personally expand the article to include the older references (and not just cut and paste them which is what our current article consists of), then cross link between the two articles. WookieeV (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, it appears that Mercury(II) oxide already gives a nod to the alchemical origins of the compound by listing Maslama al-Majriti in the History heading. A quick glance over Maslama's page shows that he describes a process almost identical to the more recent sourcing we have found. I am going to clean up and expand the Arcanum corallinum page, then link it to both Mercury(II) oxide and Maslama al-Majriti as a "see also:" in the History/Pseudo-Majriti sections respectively unless I hear an objection. Regardless, this needs to be removed from deletion debate since there is clearly significance. WookieeV (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been fully updated and de-orphaned. Basis for original AfD is now a nullity and should be retracted. WookieeV (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The miniscule amount of actual content in this page can be put into a sentence or two on Mercuric Oxide, including the "Alternate name" on the data page. That would obviate the usefulness of this page completely.

Riventree (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This compound is distinctly different than Mercuric Oxide, as explained in the article. Arcanum corallinum is an archaic medical treatment addressed, at length, in numerous medical/alchemical encyclopedias. Mercuric Oxide is incredibly toxic and only the first stage of producing Arcanum Corallinum. Including it in Mercuric Oxide would be incorrect and, in fact, grossly misleading. Even if we ignored the fact that the article meets WP:N, has been de-orphaned, cited, expanded, and is at least qualified as a alternative medicine stub, your interest in merging or redirecting this page negates the original nomination for deletion. Please see (WP:BEFORE). Usefulness, or the lack thereof (which has not been demonstrated), is not an absolute criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. Students of medieval/pre-modern medicine, alternative medicine, alchemical historians, etc could/would find a great deal of merit and information in this page. Personal bias against alternative medicine is hardly a reason for deleting a page which meets wikipedia's article requirements. WookieeV (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete. The "dressup" that's been done on the page includes two references that are just word lookups in wiktionary - apparently to get the "refs" count up, since they should be links, not references. Further, someone's marked it "B" quality, apparently also in defense of the page, because it doesn't meet the requirements for that either, even in the alternative medicine definitions. Lastly it's hard to determine if the lately added contributions are WP:SOCK material or not. Delete.

Riventree (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepNumber of references are immaterial to whether or not to delete a wikipedia page... All of nominator's arguments speak to the quality of the page, not to whether or not it should be kept. If one feels strongly they should be links and not references on the latin text, go ahead and change it to improve the article quality. That does nothing to change the fact that the page should be kept. Even a downgrade to stub status (also well within an editor's purview) would not negate the validity of the inclusion of the page; I think there is some confusion about what AfD is for, on the nominator's part. If we were to delete every page that was short on references and a stub, there would be far, far fewer Wikipedia pages. There are other forums and methods for addressing every argument raised- this debate has yet to see a valid argument for deletion. WookieeV (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mercury(II) oxide and add a section "use in traditional medicine." The level of instruction in this article is non-encyclopedic as Wikipedia is not a medical textbook. However, it seems worth incorporating a small part of this history in our description of the chemical compound. Piboy51 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally agreed with that concept, Piboy51, but through expanding the article I realized that that would be extremely misleading. Only the first half of the process to make this apparent compound results in [Mercury(II) oxide]. The mercuric oxide (which is incredibly toxic at that stage) is then further refined into an entirely different end product. It is not an archaic description of creating mercuric oxide. WookieeV (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Mercury(II) oxide It isn't clear to me how it is different from mercuric oxide. It sounds like it is mercuric oxide that is distilled with water and vinegar. It would still be mercuric oxide after that. BakerStMD T|C 15:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  While I may be seriously missing something and should defer to the physician here, but I'm not sure how tartarized ETOH is water and vinegar... I was under the impression that the secondary process deoxidized the mercuric oxide, thus rendering it 'safe', quotes used solely because I have no idea what this compound would actually do to a person now, but it seems unlikely it would rapidly poison you and destroy nephrotic function if it was so widely considered a treatment for medicinal use in pre-modern medicine. It is my understanding that straight out mercuric oxide is exceptionally toxic and is used in making batteries; I am drawing this understanding directly from the page people are voting we redirect an alternative medicine stub to... WookieeV (talk) 20:29, 17 January 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, per WP:SNOW. —Lowellian (reply) 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porte de Vincennes siege (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 should be part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, and was until the creation of this fork. It is not a separate incident, but part of that chain of that chain of events. It must be deleted. I also don't understand the use of the word "siege", which doesn't seem to be based in reality. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough notability for separate article. Merging to main article violates WP:SIZE. Rename to Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis. 178.94.120.204 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The main article is not too large for the guideline, and is in fact modest in size. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep More than sufficient individual notablity. If kept, naming issues aren't for this page to decide. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Per Dweller. Plenty of more details to add to the page as well. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Obviously notable and a different event to CH; frankly, nominator's wasting people's time with this and the Je suis one. Ericoides (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for keeping this article. It must be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite keep Notable in itself and is part of a larger trend of antisemitic violence in Europe separate from the initial shootings at Charlie Hebdo --81.129.124.67 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Obviously notable, separate, historical event. Part of French history. Strong keep and expand.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its is a distinct event:
  
• * * 1. executed by a different set of terrorists
  
• * * 2. with a different motive
  
• * * * 2.a Charlie Hebdo was for free speech the terrorists did not agree with
  
• * * * 2.b Hypercacher attack was anti-semite event, as self-declared by the terrorist and by the President of France too
  
• * * 3. with a different set of victims
  
• * * * 3.a Charlie Hebdo was against employees of Charlie Hebdo or whoever got in the way
  
• * * * 3.b Hyperchacher attack was deliberately against Jews and all killed are Jews
  
• XavierItzm (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Event is distinct enough to warrant separate coverage for now. Issue may be revisited in future if this should change. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will most likely always be relevant and there is a good chance further coverage will come when things calm down, this is a historically significant event --81.129.124.67 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per every other statement made here. My only issue is that it needs some more information. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree, but even with some clean-up and a bit more accurate details, it's still going to stay as a fairly small article. Perhaps merging the Amedy Coulibaly article in with it can give it some more substance? I'm not sure. Someone else can deal with it if it's indeed as important of an article as this discussion says it is. Zup326 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep seriously? Let's get rid of the delete tag already Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and/or Merge I agree with RGloucester that extra articles are probably not needed for each subsequent event that occurred after the main Charlie Hebdo shooting. My reasoning is that I don't believe many people are going to remember the sieges as stand-alone issues, but rather they will be remembered as a continuation and the conclusion to the Charlie Hebdo saga. Sort of like the term "Kleenex" is now used to describe all tissue, even the ones that aren't official Kleenex brand. The term "Charlie Hebdo" has taken on a similar meaning with regard to these attacks. But at the same time it's also not plausible to delete the new articles merely for the sake of having too many articles. This deletion debate will swiftly end in favor of keep. Zup326 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that some would see it as a significant event in its own right for reasons that should be fairly clear --81.129.124.67 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although related to the earlier murders, it is an independently notable event. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Separate event. --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is distinct enough to have a separate article. The Charlie Hebdo shooting article does not cover it adequately. --Article editor (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally closed this as Keep but upon thinking about it as well as the !votes here I think it's best I reopen given the nature of it all, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I vehemently disagree with nominator that this event needs to remain in the Charlie Hedbo shooting article. In fact, it should be barely mentioned within that article, given the size constraints and the fact that it was not the same perps. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for all the reasons mentioned above. I agree that the word "siege" in the title is misplaced, but that is definitely not grounds for deletion. It is definitely a notable event. BenLinus1214^talk 22:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Obviously notable LectriceDuSoir (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Very notable.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was a distinct event separate the many other events in the chain that occured in those ~48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.189.141 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable event--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is indicated by sources. Also an admonishment to the nominator for starting ridiculous, time-wasting AFDs. Everyking (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

should we remove the deletion tag?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can User:RGloucester see consensus here and remove the tag? -- Aronzak (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep part of global international coverage of Charlie Hebdo shooting, admin should be ashamed for such a ridiculous AFD -- Aronzak (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If you wanted this to be part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, why wouldn't you at least keep it as a redirect? A bold merge would have been possible without any discussion per WP:BRD, and regardless of your stance (although from the looks of it, it likely would have been reverted), there should at least be a redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Dustin (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he tried a bold merge which was indeed swiftly reverted. Had this discussion miraculously gone his way then in all likelihood he'd have made redirections as well. If not then someone else could have easily made them. The name of the article at the time was not even certain. AfD was pretty much his only shot at pulling off the merge anyway. A very slim chance nonetheless which is now all but finished. Zup326 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Erm. SNOWBALL. C'est tout. --Dweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sources clearly establish notability. Clearly an independent event to Charlie Hebdo. Spiderone 08:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Although clearly connected to the perpetrators of the CH attack, Coulibaly's actions and clearly significant enough to merit their own page. If all he had done was shoot the police officer and then been quickly apprehended or neutralised, the content could easily be incorporated with the CH attack page, but the supermarket attack is far too notable in its own right not to have its own page. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another bad-faith nom from RGloucester (see Je suis Charlie). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Distinctly separate from the main incident, this article justifies itself through size and notability. doktorb _words^deeds 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Notable in itself and is part of a larger trend of violence in the world. Trackteur (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough notability for separate article. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 12:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Lewson (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 non-notable woman. Someone who may have served as a model for a single character and may have been over 110 years old is not notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have expanded the article, but unsure on notability yet. She was covered in a significant number of sources at the time, and I found at least 4 reprintings of her obituary in major publications of her, in addition to coverage in many other books. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Thomas Seccombe article in the 1893 Dictionary of National Biography and the Walter Scott journal entry are probably sufficient for notability, to which can be added the more hypothetical Dickens link. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted kidnappings by Israel Defense Forces (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)

One incident is hardly basis for an article. Not to mention that the incident, which lasted a few hours, was described as an interrogation by Israeli media. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note, if this discussion will lead to significant improvement of the article, in such a way that it will not be deleted, then I will also be content. But as it is now, this article is a farce, and a politically inflammable one at that. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 10 January 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 January 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added it. Perhaps check your instructions, because if a 7-year editor can't get it right, perhaps there is something wrong with the instructions. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One single incident does not justify an entire article about "kidnappings".--Ashurbanippal (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A second incident (or series of incidents) was added today, by the original editor of this article. I improved the sourcing a little, but added a ((Better source)) tag with the following reason: The source has a strong POV. In addition, even this source admits most were released after interrogation. Now, since when is bringing people in for interrogation called "kidnapping"? In addition, the source has a disclaimer, which suggests the materials are not reviewed by any editorial board, in which case they fail WP:RS. In simple words, the article did not become and better because of today's addition. rather to the contrary, I'd say. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sisi may or may not be a notable incident in its own right, but he has an article already. Zahra's case doesn't seem to be notable at all, and no sources have connected them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 January 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 Indian English. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable at all. Only source I saw noting it was an opinion site, plus the article doesn't establish anything that would make me consider this significant. Wizardman 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is currently no indication of notability and I could not find any reliable sources on the subject itself. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Indian English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Indian English -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – to Indian English. But it looks like OR to me. It exists at Indian English because the same author recently put it there. He has added the same vowel table to Indian English and Received Pronunciation, but it was deleted from Received Pronunciation as dubiously sourced. I added a couple of ((cn)) tags to Indian English, as this tripartite division of Cultivated/Standard/Regional might be OR and needs to be checked. See Talk:Received Pronunciation#New table. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 17:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statohm (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)

14 word article. I tried to redirect it and merge but that was reverted. Putting to more formal process to have merged. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, as inappropriate venue. I don't believe that the nominator actually wishes the page gone, rather just wants to challenge the merge revert. Opening a discussion on the talk page would be more appropriate. I reverted it because it was merged to an entirely inappropriate place, the ohm article is part of a completely different set of units and will only add confusion there. While I am not absolutely against some kind of merge, the topic is probably defensible as a standalone page on the grounds that it is capable of expansion. Most material on this unit and its history is likely to be in 1960s texts when the system was actually in use. Unfortunately gbooks is quite poor at providing preview from this era so building an article from online sources would be difficult. Nevertheless, there is some material available, there is some discussion in this book for instance. These are also the units used by James Clerk Maxwell, a central figure (the central figure) in the development of electromagnetism. There is some discussion of these units as they relate to Maxwell in this book. At the very least, the article could be expanded along the lines of the statmho article, a sister article similarly reverted. SpinningSpark 17:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". We have articles about the statcoulomb and the statvolt so why wouldn't we have this unit too? If it seems short currently then that just means it's a stub in need of expansion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I nominated for delete on the basis that dozens of these new short articles on obsoleted units are out there and there is an effort to ID and combine them into reasonably useful articles. Make it something useful if it is important to you. 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no compunction on anybody to work on anything, and as Andrew pointed out to you, failure to work on a stub is not grounds for its deletion. SpinningSpark 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep in the current much-improved state after Andrew D's work. The situation is that a single editor with apparently poor English language skills, no particular demonstrated expertise in the subject matter,and blind faith in a source other editors have doubts about, is creating an unstoppable stream of articles on units - first one by one, now country by country- which are full of problems. and of doubtful nett value to the encyclopaedia without a similar rescue operation. 20:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep After the recent work done, this looks like a fine stub. the statohm is a electromagnetism unit of historical significance and is verifiable in reliable sources, some of which are used in the article. There is no policy-based reason for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I do not think that deleting this article now would be a step forward, but I can't see it as better than a step sideways. The trouble is that this does not really merit an encyclopedia article, it merits inclusion in an article which explains the esu system so that at least someone like me can understand it. I cannot see that it is efficient to struggle to improve this article, or any of the other disconnected articles on esu units, before trying to write a proper article on esu itself. I get very quickly lost in this stuff, because it is genuinely hard; the article on Gaussian units is trying to explain things, and not quite making it. (The original stub really was so vacuous that deleting it would have benefitted humanity, at least by saving the time wasted on unproductive discussion.) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sorry, I missed electrostatic units, and have updated the link. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:49, 13 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Flatt (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) 15:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 12:35, 13 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Andhera Roshni (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 evidence of notability whatsoever. I can verify that it exists, just about, but that's about it. A claim about an actress winning some award failed verification terribly, so I removed it. PROD removed with no reason given, and I can't see how this passes GNG. Also, TV articles generally aren't this empty if they're of notable subjects; not the best argument policy-wise, but it adds to the feeling of non-notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands. The one reference given appears to be a clip or some other view from it. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 10 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) @ 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren O'Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is an assertion of notability, but the fact that the National Theatre is one of two sources used is problematic as she has appeared in two of their productions. With the other source being "Spotlight.com", I do not believe WP:V is being properly satisfied. James ^{(T • C)} • 10:23 AM • 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 1 January 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. This has already had over 2 weeks here and in the absence of any (current) opinions in favour of keeping I am closing as Delete. Michig (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. The claim she was Executive Officer of the CPHC is unsourced and seems dubious - the CPHC doesn't have any executive officers, just a committee according to its web site. It could be her role predates them being run by committee but it's unclear as dates aren't given, their web site doesn't mention her and it's unsourced. No indication why she was made a honorary fellow, just an entry in a list. And only one of fifteen co-editors of an update to an existing glossary. I.e. falls short of WP:NACADEMICS and WP:NAUTHOR. Searches turns up nothing better. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep Delete Keep – This cite shows that she was Executive Officer in 2002. I added it and edited the article to make clear that she is one of 15 co-editors. That doesn't quite qualify under WP:NACADEMICS #C8, which wants a "head or chief editor". So that leaves #C6, for Executive Officer, which would depend on whether the CPHC is a "major academic institution or major academic society". I don't know, but the earlier cite as of 2002 said that "There are 106 departments in the UK that are eligible to join CPHC, and 103 of them belong." so maybe it qualifies. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Closer inspection reveals that "In 1995 it was decided to employ an Administration Assistant, whose role developed into that of Executive Officer and who also provides support for the Treasurer." So it looks like this post was not the Chair, but the person who runs the office. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found that when looking for sources, about the only thing with her name it on the web site if I recall. It was written by her so not reliable secondary source. The biographical information consists of one short sentence, so hardly in depth.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is another version of the article, as published in the newsletter of the Computing Research Association. Which is a North American organization, so it was "one of an occasional series of articles describing computing research in other countries." Still, they were affiliated organizations and she was invited to contribute. Unless there was no editorial control over that newsletter I think we can assume that she was who it says she was. That said, it looks like the position itself is not the kind envisioned by #C6, so I am changing my !vote to delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On third thought, I am changing my !vote again. Sorry, this is a borderline case and I'm trying to be fair here. I've added one more cite which I think gives a better idea of what she's done in her career. It's not strictly academic, so I'm abandoning the NPROF criteria and going with the fact she was influential in setting IT education and training policies at two important organizations in the UK. We don't have criteria for that, so it's a judgment call. At the CPHC she may not have been the head of the organization, but she was a key person in actually running it, as indicated by the way they upgraded her title. At the BCS she was in charge of education and career training programs, a key part of its mission. About her role as editor of the glossary, it's not the kind of content that would be contributed by a computer scientist, so she may well have had a major hand in writing and/or editing the book. And presumably she was made an Honorary Fellow for her contributions to education. Of course there's no ironclad proof for either of those things. But I do think that in assessing notability we should make our best effort to be fair and guard against underestimating as well as overestimating, and it just seems like the most reasonable interpretation to me. So. We don't have criteria for IT educators, but if we did I think she would pass. If someone objects that we don't have those criteria and therefore she fails, I won't argue against that. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources still fall far short of what\s needed for WP:GNG. There are two things written by her, so not reliable secondary sources, not biographical except they have brief biographical information, so not significant coverage. The other references have even less information about her. I don't doubt that she has been involved in the BCS as noted in the second of the two articles she wrote. But that she's been involved in the BCS for a decade or more but no-one has written about her, except that brief biographical information, suggests she is not notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. As I said above, it's accepted practice that we can use an organization's statements about itself as a source for non-controversial facts, such as who its officers are. The second biographical note was by BCS, not the author, so that applies. About GNG, sure. But for various occupations we have carve-outs from GNG that specify exceptions. If a rugby player plays in a professional league or an academic edits a journal, he gets an article automatically. That's regardless of GNG or any type of coverage. It's actually quite rare for a journal editor to be written up, qua editor, by a secondary source. Doesn't matter, he still gets the article on that basis alone. But we have large gaps in these carve-outs. For example, no explicit criteria for public servants. I'm saying that to be fair to individuals in those occupations we could give them equal treatment and consider whether they have been notable in their profession. But if someone says "no criteria, no article" then that's OK, I'm not going to press it. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really carve outs or exceptions. Guidelines such as WP:PROF, WP:ATH, describe additional evidence that can be used for notability, in fields where it can be hard to find general secondary sources (as mainstream media is less interested in academics and sportspeople, than politicians and movie stars say). If that evidence doesn't exist then WP:GNG still applies, as it does to fields without special guidelines such as civil servants. As for being fair the fairest thing especially for living people is to only create articles based on in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise the danger is the article will be inaccurate and unrepresentative, missing out on their major achievements and milestones.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. Once the professor gets his article despite a complete lack of GNG, there is still a lot to write about in the form of reactions to his books and articles. But not in this case. As it stands, the article is rewritten, resourced and verifiable. To me it doesn't look out of place on Wikipedia. But it still doesn't give much sense of what she did. We've done our best. If the material isn't there it's not our fault. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A sweep of British news media did not reveal anything. Neither did a sweep of computer related news or education related sources, suggesting this subject does not meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 12 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Original research/original synthesis. Essay sourced to three dictionary definitions ("scientific method", "philosophy", and "metaphysics", respectively). Looking around on Scholar etc I can find some people defining their own "law of aggression", but none of them seem very notable. Or is the one discussed here. Kolbasz (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dictionary definitions cannot give notability - otherwise we'd have an article for every word in the OED. Looks like OR or essay. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear verifiable. Piboy51 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete large amount of material that is not cohesive and fails to be verifiable. There is an assertion that this is a "scientific law" but doesn't appear to be based on repeatable experiments and I can't see anything published anywhere reputable along these lines. The dictionary references don't relate to the subject of this article. This article seems to have been mainly put together by one editor who relys on a single source to substantiate their claims- a book by a non-notable author. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:04, 17 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (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)

Let's try this again. Last Afd had some socks involved and also I didn't find the arguments compelling. Just because it has been cited multiple times in Google books doesn't mean it could be notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree, this article has pretty much zero WP:RS, and thus fails WP:N.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage. Unreferenced (except for website) for 10 years. The corporation is real, per state of California records, but that's all I could find about it. It appears to be a tiny operation run out of somebody's home (per Mapquest search). Their stated mission is to produce 300 monographs; in their 20 years of existence they have produced 31. No wonder they haven't been given any coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 17 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annalakshmi (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 couldn't establish that this chain of restaurants meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 27 December 2014 (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Extreme Sport Challenges Association (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)

Exactly no independent reliable sources found. Article does not meet the general notability guidelines. ceradon (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 16:09, 27 December 2014 (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. Michig (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Alberta (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)

Unreferenced articles about a regional sports organization which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NRU - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also included in this discussion are the following articles;

Calgary Rugby Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edmonton Rugby Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calgary Mavericks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calgary Canadian Irish Athletic Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edmonton Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of rugby union-related deletion discussions. - MacRùsgail (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is one of the provincial rugby union organisations in Canada, which fall immediately below the national one, Rugby Canada. Therefore it is one of the most notable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. Note that nominator did not list this nomination on rugby union pages.[reply]

Can you provide a policy based argument that does not sound like WP:INHERITED?- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken you up on this "inherited" business on one of the other deletion discussions on Canadian rugby. I do not see the relevance here, and would appreciate the minimal use of jargon here please.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divided opinion —

Oppose — I would prefer to keep the Rugby Alberta article. It is a regional governing body. Articles regarding regional governing bodies are common across rugby articles, several of which are better developed. See, for example, Southern California Rugby Football Union. The main problem seems to be that this article is a stub, which is a fixable problem.

The WP:RU Notability Guideline is silent on the subject. That guideline sets forth notability guidelines for biographies and for clubs, but not for governing bodies. If you want, you can start a discussion on the WP:RU talk page suggesting notability guidelines for governing bodies.

Support — I agree with deleting the other five articles. The Edmonton and Calgary articles don't seem notable, given their limited geographic scope, and the fact that they are merely sub-organizations within Rugby Alberta. The three club articles don't meet the criteria for clubs described in the WP:RU Notability Guideline, and I support deleting them. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2014 (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. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mas canija que ninguna (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)

Speculative information, the telenovela has not yet been fully confirmed, the cast has not been confirmed, are just rumors. I think it would be best to wait until the soap has at least release date. For now nothing is confirmed, "the producers themselves have said they are doing tests with respect to the cast". McVeigh / talk 15:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 16:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 16:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references, speculation in article. WP:TOOSOON. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:24, 12 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 18:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amores de barrio (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)

Speculative information, the telenovela has not yet been fully confirmed, the cast has not been confirmed, are just rumors. I think it would be best to wait until the soap has at least release date. For now nothing is confirmed, "the producers themselves have said they are doing tests with respect to the cast". McVeigh / talk 15:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 16:04, 27 December 2014 (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 #1

Mama Cass (restaurant) (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)

After a thorough review of this article, I can't find the significant coverages to reliable sources that establish the subject notability.No evidence of passing WP:CORP either. All I can see is an evidence that the restaurant exist but not an evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The restaurant is just like any common restaurant in every district. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per WP:IMPACT This restaurant chain is notable for its food services in Nigeria. The nominator has no basis for deletion.Eruditescholar (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe notability in this case needs to be based on the region/counties where it is located and the available media there. If this was a small chain in the US with the same number/quality of sources, then notability might be more arguable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Gosh! Please can you point out the significant coverages in reliable sources that established the subject notability? If you can do this, then I will gladly withdraw my nomination. The notability of a subject is more than a passing mention of the subject. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, since you asked nicely: [4] an in depth analysis by a Major Nigerian Newspaper (by Wikipedia definition). Proof that it is multinational: [5]. Travel guide recommendations by USA Today: [6], [7]. More in depth analysis by a major contributor: [8] (already used as a cite). An in the news item: [9] where it is unfortunate (to be expected given the country) that the actual publisher appears to have lost the entire article. A celebrity (by Nigerian standards) scandal article: [10]. I'm sure we could debate this endlessly, but once again this is Nigeria media/web we are talking about: Top 5 fast food options in Nigeria. In a guide to west Africa (a huge area with numerous countries), Mama Cass is set apart for its "Nigerian-oriented staple fare": [11]. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn: as speedy keep #1 per significant coverages to reliable sources pointed out by VMS Mosaic . However, it doesn't matter who closes this AfD. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:35, 13 January 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.