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) 13:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Girls (album)[edit]

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

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

This article is little more than a tracklisting, and since it's a compilation album, I don't think it could ever grow beyond that. It also doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Random86 (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks enough sources, and is missing importance from article. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Just a rehash and repackage of songs for Chinese-language markets. Unlikely to be much in the way of sources on this. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:19, 23 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn. Only delete vote struck. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Day Adventist Church of Tonga[edit]

Seventh Day Adventist Church of Tonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is ostensibly trivia regarding observance of the sabbath relative to the International Date Line. Jeffro77 (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I know a LOT about this specific issue and this article is pretty much an attack job and utter nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep With the dramatic improvements this article is fantastic. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A lot of reliable sources are available, if one simply Googles the title for news and books. Adding "ethnography OR anthropology OR study OR studies" to the search field eliminates most of the non-scholarly hits. I agree that the present article has problems, but those should be addressed by editing - e.g.(reduction to a stub) - rather than deletion. is a 09:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The 'Google test'? For a start, that's not a reliable method for determining notability. Secondly, the most prominent results are from SDA sites, which are primary sources and not sufficient to establish notability. It is not sufficient for sources simply to indicate that there are SDAs in Tonga to warrant an article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. Did you add the string I suggested? Do you have a history of Googling SDA sites that skewed your results? is a 10:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And no (were you hoping I did?). I didn't notice any stand-out sites that appear especially suitable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could not find 2 academic sources from Google? Wow!

Bibliographies [1] (also a chapter in [2]). Discussions in [3]. Update: Another bibliography [4]

You seem to have a lot of anti-religion stuff on your user page. Could you point to an AfD discussion where you wanted to keep an article on a new religious movement? is a 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three userboxes about atheism among several dozen userboxes unrelated to religion is hardly "a lot of anti-religion stuff", but nice ad hominem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links you posted don't indicate anything more than passing mention of SDAs in Tonga. Only one is specifically about SDAs in the Pacific; the other two aren't specifically about religion at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now you wish to change your vote from "delete" to merge/rename to "SDA in the Pacific"? is a 11:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything remotely like that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usable content is already present at Religion in Tonga; I have no objection to redirecting to that article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator should read WP:BEFORE. A quick search shows various books and articles that discuss the subject in some depth, for example
  • Elizabeth Colson (2006). Tonga Religious Life in the Twentieth Century. African Books Collective. ISBN 978-9982-24-045-1. and
  • Dennis Steley (April 1988). "A Note on Seventh-Day Adventist Sources for the Pacific". The Journal of Pacific History: 102–105.

The subject is clearly notable, regardless of the quality of the article as it stands. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources is specifically about SDAs in Tonga. The first is certainly a suitable sources for Religion in Tonga; the available abstract on which the claim about the second source is based mentions Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Rarotonga (part of the Cook Islands), Tuvalu and Vanuatu, but does not mention Tonga.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steley discusses the Adventist Koe Babitaiso (Tongan language pamphlet) and Talafekau Mooni (Tongan language monthly magazine). Others sources would include Garrett, John (1997). Where Nets Were Cast: Christianity in Oceania Since World War II. ISBN 978-982-02-0121-7., Lal, Brij V.; Fortune, Kate (2000). The Pacific Islands: An Encyclopedia. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-2265-1., Morton, Helen; Lee, Helen Morton (1996). Becoming Tongan: An Ethnography of Childhood. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-1795-4., Finau, Makisi; Ieuti, Teeruro; Langi, Jione (1992). Island Churches: Challenge and Change. ISBN 978-982-02-0077-7., Garrett, John (1992). Footsteps in the Sea: Christianity in Oceania to World War II. ISBN 978-982-02-0068-5. and so on. Much has been written about the Adventists in Tonga, as one would expect. The nominator would be better employed expanding the article from the many available sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good sources for Religion in Tonga.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffro77: may we take it that you plan to expand Religion in Tonga? Or Adventist Mission? Or both? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the closing administrator can see what is happening. Perhaps other editors will look at this discussion or the article and try to help. is a 14:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, you're welcome to assume anything you like. I nominated the article on reasonable grounds. If the decision is to delete (redirect), then that would be consistent with the notability of the subject matter. If the decision is to keep, I don't agree with the rationale, but it's ultimately fine too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffro77: I guess that means "no", so I may expand this article without duplicating your research. For clarity, are you proposing to merge/redirect, retaining the title and article history, or to delete, purging the title completely from Wikpedia. If the former, there is a different process described at Wikipedia:Merging. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little content in this article, and at the time the nomination was raised, it was just a coatrack for expressing a POV. Now, it's even less. It's not clear why the article in its current form or at the time of nomination would be a candidate for merging. It would do no harm to delete it, but I have no objection to redirecting. However, if the result of your objections is that the article is kept, it would certainly be best if you improve the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffro77: I again advise you to read WP:BEFORE, then withdraw this nomination. The minimum searches clearly show the potential. The current status of the article is irrelevant. If it can be fixed through normal editing it is not a candidate for AfD. Deletion does harm, since it raises a red flag for any editor considering recreating the article, and thus discourages growth of the encyclopedia. If it is a valid encyclopedic topic, the article should not be deleted. You may yourself consider improving the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that the topic is so notable as to warrant an article separate to Religion in Tonga and other articles already covering Adventism. If others disagree, that's fine, but I see no reason to withdraw the nomination of an article that has existed for 6 years only as a source of POV trivia about the Sabbath.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note your recent improvements to the article, although this could still be condensed to three paragraphs at Religion in Tonga. It seems to be fleshed out with some details that are trivial (e.g. a nurse helping to deliver a child has nothing to do with their religion) or out scope (e.g. irrelevant detail about Pitcairn Islands).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - signficant improvements have been made, and there is clear consensus to keep.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 23 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 withdrawn Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Day Adventist Church (Petoskey, Michigan)[edit]

Seventh Day Adventist Church (Petoskey, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a non-current non-notable usage of a non-notable building. Jeffro77 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The church building is on the National Register of Historic Places and is therefore notable. It's not online (yet), but there should be a nomination with an explanation of the site's significance and a bibliography, which provides evidence of notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is notable as a heritage-listed site, and the only source gives two different names for the site, then the title of the article should be changed to the street address. The cited source doesn't say anything about the site, and searching that website for religious sites in Michigan doesn't return any results, nor does a search for any sites in Petoskey. Has the nomination been approved? If it has only been nominated, that also would not qualify as notability, per WP:CRYSTAL. It's also not certain that inclusion on the National Register Historic Places automatically warrants a Wikipedia article. Is it likely that the article will be expanded? Are there are any other sources that discuss the building?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been approved; the database linked in the article is undergoing maintenance, but if you look at the spreadsheet linked here it's included. (The second name appears to be an alternate name, so it should keep its current name.) And inclusion on the NRHP is, and has historically been, considered a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia's standards, so NRHP-listed sites are considered notable. I'm not a fan of these bare-bones articles either, but some of us at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places are trying to expand them; Michigan's one of the three states that doesn't have online nomination forms yet, but I put in a request for a copy, and if and when I get it I can expand this one too. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn after consideration of further comments by User:TheCatalyst31.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 20 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Ambrose[edit]

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

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

PROD contested for no reason. Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:32, 20 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) 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – On 21 January, Ambrose appeared as a sub for Man City in a friendy against Hamburger SV. This appearance may technically meet WP:NFOOTY as it was a match between two FPL clubs, though it was not a competition match. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it doesn't. For Hamburg this was a practice match for them before getting back to the competitive season and for City it was... well... I don't know why CIty had a friendly now but they did so technically he still fails WP:NFOOTY as it was not a competitive match. It is like saying a player is notable for an appearance in a pre-season game. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. That's the way I was leaning, but I just needed clarification. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:55, 23 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Short (executive)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable businessman. The article is authored by the subject himself ([5]). The failed claims to notability appear to be: President of non-notable company IEP ([6]); founder and board member of Electronic Entertainment Design and Research, whose notability is unclear; author of a non-notable book ‘’the Billion Dollar Paperclip’’. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, I've also AfDed Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Entertainment Design and Research). TJRC (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - we are not a webhost for resumes -- that's what LinkedIn is for. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I added the notability tag after finding no hint at all of meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 26 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 Wrong Venue. Aleksandr Grigoryev - This belongs at WP:TFD. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic (edit | [[Talk:Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic|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 template fails basic wikipedia policies such WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOTNEWS, and others Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, organizations in template are not registered parties and are rather known as public organizations. Person who created the template does not have a basic understanding in politics of the region. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:11, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close: wrong venue, please proceed to WP:TFD. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:40, 19 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gadiel Rosado Colón[edit]

Juan Gadiel Rosado Colón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP of Puerto Rican TV personality. Fails notability and I only saw his username on social network sites like Twitter, Myspace, etc. Snowager (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The 1991 Univision show is clearly a hoax, and most of the other information in this article is name-change plagiarism of Don Francisco. Whatever remains doesn't appear to pass WP:N. Calamondin12 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hoax, blatantly copied from Don Francisco (television host) with names changed. Towards the end, he hasn't even bothered to change the name. There may be such a person, but the article tells us nothing about him because all its facts are about Don Francisco. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haydonites[edit]

Haydonites (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)

Demonstrates no notability and consists entirely of plot summary. Deprodded based on a google search that doesn't even demonstrate potential notability (results are wiki's, fansites and only brief, casual mentions of the subject). Page has not improved for the 7 years it has existed. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the original person who prodded this, I did not and continue to see no notability to be found here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete Just in-universe stuff. Shii (tock) 03:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in reliable sources to support notability.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:42, 27 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasonic toothbrush[edit]

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

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

Article composed by reliable sources that does not mention the subject. (e.g. Human voice frequency has nothing to do with the brush) Mys_721tx (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic passes WP:N. Source examples include: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Its content is an interoperation of WP:PRIMARYs. I am not against the topic but the current article must be re-written. -Mys_721tx (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I understand your expressed concern to be that the currently cited sources don't sufficiently and directly relate to ultrasonic toothbrushes. I noted that two of the studies you deleted in this edit do mention ultrasonic toothbrushes in their titles; could you please explain the deletions of those 2 sources? Thanks, --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not carefully check the last two sources, and only thought they were the same as first two. I will restore those two.-Mys_721tx (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is nothing unencyclopedic about this article to the point I wonder if there is a language barrier or possibly a mistake with the nomination and the nominator should just withdraw this. MicroPaLeo (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep-- topic seems notable. Deletion not a substitute for fixing the problems in an article. Agree work needed however. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 12:35, 26 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Telekom Brunei[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company that doesn't even indicate why it's significant. A7 contested. I could find "Telekom+Brunei+Berhad" no real news mentions about what the company is notable for. There seems to be a single event mention of the company in the set of Chinese articles at the bottom, but that's about when another company was helping this company (from what I gathered via google translate) and not really a mention that would warrant a standalone article (Wikipedia is not news). — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This is the major (monopoly?) fixed-line and Internet telecom carrier in Brunei. There are a lot more hits on Google for "TelBru", e.g. [14] [15], about their FTTH rollout. We also have an article Telecommunications in Brunei, which is seriously out of date, so it could be merged there. But it's a rich country, if small, and I think we ought to have an article on the major fixed-line carrier. (Note -- apparently they aren't doing as well in mobile, which is fast displacing fixed-line service) – Margin1522 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per [User:Margin1522|Margin1522]]. And try:

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

--doncram 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Margin1522 rather than merging into Telecommunications in Brunei as a merge wouldn't create a better article. The company is relevant even though the article is poor. Hopefully that might change one day, otherwise it might remain a stub forever, which is acceptable as well. --PanchoS (talk) 17:11, 22 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) 13:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The gate coach[edit]

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

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

Non notable coaching centre. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Article reads WP:PROMO and fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG, and also is a WP:COPYVIO from here, here and many other places. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources used in the article talk about the exams and results but not the subject. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:46, 24 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) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

America's Music Charts[edit]

America's Music Charts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources or claim of notability. If this is deleted, WP:CHARTS should also list this as a site to avoid. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage about this web site that would establish notability. The article itself provide nothing in the way of references. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. Delete per nominator's rationale. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in reliable sources to support notability.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:39, 27 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 Mark Noyce#Happy Pup Films. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Pup Films[edit]

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

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

Non-notability. Newly created article on film production company that does not appear to have actually released a single film yet. This is probably promotional editing : aticles on non-notable films and non-notable producer have recently been created.TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep The filmography is strange. It includes films like this On the Ropes (2011 film), which is a film by Mark Noyce. Now these two are real enough (notability isn't a question for this page), yet the film is credited to Mark Noyce alone, no production company named. Now if Happy Pup is a new creation, is this really a film they can take credit for? Why is this 2011 film being re-stated on this page as 2015? That looks like padding the Happy Pup catalogue with Noyce's back catalogue to bulk it out.

I'm happy, assuming that Noyce is notable and some AGF, to see Happy Pup as just about notable (more by inheritance than anything) and so I'm not looking to delete it. However it would be stronger, and maybe more justifiable, as a redirect to a section on a broader article at Mark Noyce#Happy Pup Films. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia's notability guidelines specify that notability is NOT inheritable. A production company could have worked on a major motion picture and still be non-notable per general notability guidelines AND WP:ORG. That might sound like rules lawyering, but it makes sense: A contractor that installed the toilets at a famous landmark wouldn't exactly have real world notability. Neither would the failed startup of a famous politician. The only way we can demonstrate notability (and the burden of proof is on those trying to do that) is with independent sources reporting on the subject. Google tells me Happy Pup Films was founded in the summer of last year, and Google news brings zero relevant results: the company isn't even mentioned in passing by any news articles. As far as I can tell, this should be a Delete, or a Merge as you suggested. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia — Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I'm unconvinced that Noyes or On The Ropes are notable. The film relies on very flaky sources, and the sources for Noyes I've looked at are similarly thin. Local press is about as good as it gets: I'm thinking of nominating both for AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a viewpoint, but we should be careful not to equate niche cinema with Hollywood and think that because something didn't have the marketing spend of Shrek, it doesn't exist. The place to look would be in the MA press, not national or local general press. I asked a couple of MMA people what they thought of Mark Noyce. No-one knew who I meant. Then I mentioned the film titles and suddenly they were all raving about them (and now they knew who Noyce is, if not by name). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mark Noyce. There is no significant independent coverage about this production company that would make it notable for a stand-alone article but material for it is appropriate for Noyce article, and it is already there. -- Whpq (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mark Noyce. There's not really anything strange here (this is Noyce's production studio). But it doesn't get any coverage separate from Noyce. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 19 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) 13:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(target)[edit]

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

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

While McCaffrey's achievements seed laudable, this seems to be WP:ONEEVENT. DOCUMENT★ERROR 03:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This page was mistakenly placed at the wrong title. If it is kept, it should be moved to Kerri McCaffrey which is currently a redirect to here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep (and rename) - we typically keep articles about people who are notable for being the first of something. I'm not sure if this qualifies, and the sourcing is weak. Perhaps there's some article we could merge to instead. Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "not sure if this qualifies", I mean that being the first person to undergo gender reassignment and not lose their job is (regrettably) notable, however I'm not sure that the first transgender teacher in a state is as notable. But sources seem to indicate that she is, and it looks like she is also a published author and public speaker on the subject. This is strong evidence of notability. Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a classic case of one event. Wikipedia is not a records manual or list of firsts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, WP: OneEvent Fyddlestix (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The news stories on this event all seem to all be contemporaneous with it, so we don't have evidence of longer-term significance needed to save this from BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious consensus is against me here, but first move to Kerri McCaffrey over the redirect, so that if someone comes along and decides to create an article about her in the future, the history is easy to find. Ivanvector (talk) 13:33, 25 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. nomination withdrawn (NAC) (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 04:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RIPS[edit]

RIPS (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)

• Subject appears to be not notable as per WP:GNG, only coverage are (i) paper written by the author of the tool or (ii) personal blogs ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator - discussion revealed that the paper has been accepted by multiple conferences. Bit borderline but seems it sort-of passes GNG. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also the question of COPYVIO. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been rewritten. Regarding the notable here are some references ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}. Note that the papers are written by the author, but were accepted at three peer reviewed top thier conferences^[7][8][9]--jdahse (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2015 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established by [16] and juried papers. ~KvnG 21:38, 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 redirect to Doctor Strange. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcerer Supreme[edit]

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

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

Article is a one-sentence dictionary type definition written from a in universe perspective. The only source cited is from the Marvel Universe Wiki, and thus is not reliable. The page there is also a dictionary definition and cites no sources. I'm AFDing it because it's rated as high importance by WikiProject Comics, although I think that may just be a copy-paste template by the article's creator. At any rate, I wanted someone who is more familiar with the Marvel Universe to take a look to see if it's really that important before deleting. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Doctor Strange. Although the title and character aren't precisely synonymous from an in-universe perspective, there's little chance of independent sources sufficient to build an article separate from the one for the character most associated with the title. It's a more-than-plausible redirect, too, especially with a film on the horizon in 2016. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  20:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Doctor Strange. It's a moniker that's usually associated with this character. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Merge to Doctor Strange. there's several characters that have been Sorcerers Supreme so a seperates article could theoretically be possible, however this falls short of that. Artw (talk) 05:34, 25 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthouse (magazine)[edit]

Arthouse (magazine) (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)

Speedy was declined so I'm bringing it here. The magazine doesn't exist yet, no notability is shown, the article is merely an unreferenced advert. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - doesn't yet exist, no ref's, not mentioned by any other sources. Deunanknute (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it isn't official policy, the article up for debate does not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). It should also be noted that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and articles about periodicals that are not published yet are strongly discouraged. Citing official policy, this topic does not meet the general notability guideline as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. MJ94 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  20:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  20:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. Wait for at least a couple of issues to come out. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. WP:TOOSOON. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unpublished magazine so, as above, this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Libby norman (talk) 20:16, 20 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard per CSD G8. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunvox[edit]

Sunvox (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)

self promotional spam Deunanknute (talk) 17:00, 19 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) 13:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ManBearPimp[edit]

ManBearPimp (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)

Up and coming young music artist, sadly seems to not yet meet WP:GNG for notability. The references provided are primarily campus newspaper commentary Gaff (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable, Self promotional article created today by newly registered editor User:Richyrams8. i suspect the additional newly registered editor User:ManBearPimp, who checked the article is a sockpuppet of the other. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject does not meet criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Gnome de plume (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:08, 20 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 Speedied (G2) by myself - "Radio Republike Srpske" is already a redirect and obviously with "=edit" on the end makes this article a useless redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Republike Srpske=edit[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/(({1))}|edit]] | [[Talk:(({1))}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/(({1))}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/(({1))}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/(({1))}|delete]] | [((fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/(({1))}|limit=999)) links] | [((fullurl:(({1))}|action=watch)) watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Radio Republike Srpske article already exists. =edit not part of subject title Terrortank (talk) 16:27, 19 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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 16:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Sandoval[edit]

 Request withdrawn

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

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

I have carried out a few quick searches and checks for this person but cannot really find anything to conclusively prove notability. Possibly most of the sources are in Spanish, which I do not read. What confuses the matter is that there are a number of Luis Sandovals in Google results as well as linked to from several articles - there seem to be at least three separate sportsmen by this name (a footballer, a boxer or wrestler, and a volleyball player) and a former prison guard, in addition to the reporter. This is outside my area so I'm raising for discussion, with no objection to retracting the nom if notability can be shown. Mabalu (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep (and improve). It's an unreferenced WP:BLP at the moment, but he's a notable presenter of a nationally known television show. Do a web search for "luis sandoval despierta america", there's loads of coverage in WP:RS. For more help with this, you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dai Pritchard - sich as? I Googled, filtering out Wikipedia, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc, but only seemed to see results along the lines of interviewer/presenter credits, nothing actually about the presenter himself. He sounded like he ought to be notable (hence why I AFD'd) but I couldn't see anything very convincing when I searched. News hits weren't very reassuring either. You may say that "loads of coverage" exists, but I ask, "where?" Mabalu (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll add some references, thanks. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - I looked, but the sources still seem a bit flimsy to me as support for Sandoval's notability so I'd really appreciate a second/third opinion. Mabalu (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dai Pritchard - Thanks so much for your speedy response to this. The Emmy nominations do convince me that he deserves an article, so I will happily withdraw. Thanks! Mabalu (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! It did take some digging: there's an awful lot of fluff and Twitter and YouTube malarkey to trawl through on the way. :-) Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:25, 19 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 Bangtan Boys. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suga (singer)[edit]

Suga (singer) (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)

Person is not independently notable.He does not Independent activities of the Group,Please redirect to the group, Bangtan Boys.(سعيدس (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• redirect:He does not Independent activities of the Group(Mrchurang (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• redirect or delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97  talk  10:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Unnotable beyond Bangtan Boys. Tibbydibby (talk) 17:59, 19 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. Rough consensus indicates that the given sources are enough to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 05:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe (student newspaper)[edit]

The Globe (student newspaper) (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)

NN student newspaper at small university, completely unsourced for SEVEN YEARS. Article unimproved and all but unchanged in the eight years since it was created. Prod removed with the specious edit summary "appears to be legitimate journalistic publication ..." That may well be so, but small-school student newspapers are not inherently notable, and WP:V and the GNG requires that a subject receive "significant coverage" in multiple, reliable sources; an WP:ITEXISTS argument never cuts it. Ravenswing 13:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've done some research and improved the article with cited sources. I agree that in its prior state it was unsourced and of poor quality, but WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. I was also able to find a good deal more source coverage in LexisNexis, but that database is being slow and wonky for me at the moment, unfortunately, so it's quite slow going with that one. — Cirt (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you didn't link the HighBeam URLs? Makes it harder to verify the sources czar ⨹ 21:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure I could do that because you have to have a login to view them. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:All citations now have URLs in them. Thank you for this helpful suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, AfD isn't for cleanup. It's also not for swamping the process with plainly trivial and fleeting mentions, either. As with Rhododendrites, I've got Highbeam access, and looking over Cirt's cites, not a single one mentions the subject beyond a passing nod, and not a single one discusses the subject in any detail, let alone the "significant coverage" the GNG mandates. In order to legitimately advocate keeping an article, you have to do more than infer or imagine that there might possibly be qualifying sources: you have to produce them, and I'm both astonished and dismayed that an editor of Cirt's experience, someone who's participated in hundreds of AfD discussions, could possibly be confused about the level and depth of coverage that the GNG requires in order to retain an article. I await the first such source, and invite the Keep voters to withdraw their advocacy until and unless such sources are produced. Ravenswing 00:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your little personal jab at Cirt, which you felt the need to add later, after you'd already made your point, contributes nothing to this discussion. Whether you agree with the merit of his edits or not, perhaps you should assume good faith in terms of Cirt's motives and try to keep this discussion on point. — Hunter Kahn 03:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly not Cirt's good faith I'm calling into question, but his judgment in asserting that these are sources which satisfy the GNG. A casual glance at them is all that's necessary to see that they don't remotely do so. And since we have you here for further discussion, and you're advocating keeping the article on the strength of the sources, which sources do you feel discuss the subject in significant detail? Ravenswing 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With 5 independent inline citations, this student newspaper is notable in Pittsburgh, and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Cirt's improvements already establish notability through reliable sources, and I imagine it could be improved upon even more so. — Hunter Kahn 22:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very clearly fails GNG. Not one single source about the subject. Only a collection of really weak brief mentions from only local papers in minor articles. See below for a response to the idea that any of the sources added bring it anywhere near notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I tried to track down those HighBeam links mentioned above. I couldn't find one and below are both the links and the entirety of their coverage of this subject. All these do is establish the subject exists. Establishing notability via citations rather than articles about a publication requires major citations in major publications, not brief mentions in run-of-the-mill coverage of local people and events. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • from Calling the Question is barely a mention: "In February, Point Park's student-governing body rejected, by one vote, a resolution supporting the union. University administrators urged a no vote, and Point Park's student paper, The Globe, quoted the student-body president saying there was too much uncertainty about "the real implications of unionization.""
  • I was not able to turn up any "scholastic corner" from February 2002 in Sunday News (with or without "Lancaster")
  • from Point Park Buys Building is again barely a mention: "The school's student newspaper, the Globe, has identified them as the West Penn building at Wood Street and Fort Pitt Boulevard and the 100 Wood Street Building at Wood and First Avenue."
  • from Peduto Stays in the know,Hillary's '08 Campaign Branded Casey as Enemy again barely a mention: "In a question-and-answer session at the Press Club of Western Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Peduto took a question from Andrew Goldstein, editor of the Point Park University paper, called the Globe. After Goldstein introduced himself, Peduto said he likes the Globe and praised it for an editorial that ran in the weekly's edition that had just come out that day."
  • from Kim Roberts, a brief bio of some local -- not even an article -- is again only a brief mention: "She has been a writer and features editor for the university's student-run newspaper, The Globe, and a writer for Point Park News Service.""
• Merge and Redirect Despite Cirt's work to save this article, I don't think the paper is notable as Rhododendrites points out. I'd recommend adding a sentence to Media in Pittsburgh lest the paper be forgotten. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've no objection either to a redirect to the Media in Pittsburgh article or to the university article. As to merging, I can't see what there is to merge. Cirt's additions to the article look to be trivial ephemera such as who was two of the editors last year (as opposed to any other editors of the school paper's 50 year history) or that the mayor called upon one of the student editors for a question during a press briefing once. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The fact that the student newspaper exists in Pittsburgh would be sufficient for a list-class article. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thanks above for those who've acknowledged my work on this article. Please don't be so quick to judge. I haven't completed research on this yet among other archival database resources. Thanks you for your patience, it's most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of the difficult things in carrying out research on this particular topic is the non-unique search term of "the globe", so it's hard to isolate articles about this specific subject. Here are two other search parameters, above. Still in the process of more ongoing research. Might have some time later. — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can almost understand a one sentence stub being brought to AFD, and it was a pity that an improvable stub sat unimproved for so long, but WP:NEGLECT is not a valid deletion rational, and even though AFD is not intended to force editorial attention, it often does just that. We now have a decent sourced article on a topic that serves the project and its readers. Cirt is to be thanked for his continued work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a good example of WP:NOTCLEANUP and linking to it (this is directed at multiple people, by the way) does not substitute for a keep argument (i.e. explaining why it meets notability criteria). I copied the entirety of coverage of this subject from Cirt's sources above. Beyond failing notability, there's not even enough material to write an encyclopedia article. Even if we copy/pasted the entirety of the text about this subject from these reliable sources, we'd still barely have anything (which is why brief mentions are discounted for notability purposes). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure that it being improved while under the gun of AFD was not Ravenswing's wish nor intent. And agree with it or not, my linking to WP:NOTCLEANUP was valid in pointing out that Cirt's work need not have been done, and that he has earned my respect by doing it anyway. It's now a more suitable stub than it was. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be more inclined to thank Cirt if he'd turned up sources which support the subject's notability, rather than fleeting mentions which are explicitly debarred by the GNG from supporting the notability of a subject. Have you looked at those sources yourself, Michael? Ravenswing 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough to convince me that this "minor" publication has caught the attention of enough mainstream media to meet the intent of WP:N and be "worthy of notice". And if the "mentions" were so "fleeting" (not the claimed "explicitly disbarred") as you seem to assert that nothing could be gleaned from them under policy with which to build an article, I might agree with you... but as they do offer enough information, I do not agree. The GNG is certainly the simplest means, but not the only. WP:IAR. WP:PRESERVE Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Err? The cites provide no information about the paper beyond that it exists. Beyond that, as you surely know, a source whose sole mention of a subject is a quote from the subject is explicitly excluded from supporting the notability of the subject. If what you're claiming, instead, is that your only grounds to support the subject's notability is IAR, what argument do you proffer that the student newspaper of a small school bears so much importance as to override its failure to qualify under the GNG, above and beyond your bald statement that it does? Ravenswing 13:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You first made a point of complaining that the article had sat unimproved for "SEVEN YEARS", when in point of fact you should after 10 years know that WP:NEGLECT is not a deletion criteria. You then insultingly dismissed a valid prod removal as "specious" and erred further by dismissively calling Point Park University "a small-school" as if size were a notability criteria. The safer presumption is that THE newspaper serving a major-enough University is notable enough for Wikipedia. We do not have to toss a now sourced and improved article. It serves Wikipedia and informs Wikipedia readers. And I am sorry I need to again point out that it is an error to baldly insist that the GNG is the "only" means by which a topic may be determined notable. Policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS do not insist that a source be quantitative. Policy WP:IAR disagrees with your narrow restriction of a notability guide, and so do I. Inclusion on Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest, inclusion is based on verifiability and common sense. The paper itself is quoted by others. It is enough worthy of note to be written of here because what it reports is deemed quotable by others. It makes its mark without having to say "we're notable because everyone is reporting on what we are." Per policy and guideline, the GNG is not the final word. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Policy WP:IAR disagrees with your narrow restriction of a notability guide. IAR disagrees with everything the person who invokes it doesn't like. It doesn't mean do whatever you want if you disagree with the rules, nor does it mean that policies that have nothing to do with inclusion/deletion can be substituted for those that do (WP:V and WP:RS are minimum standards for content and aren't about what should be included -- there are reliable sources for a whole lot of things that shouldn't be included). IAR means -- and I apologize if this sounds like I'm being condescending by typing this out as I know you're no newbie -- that the letter of the law shouldn't take precedent over the spirit of what it's trying to accomplish. What you're proposing is not embracing the spirit of notability but dismissing it wholesale because in this case it doesn't agree with what you want. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon me, but you're not a newbie either, and should know that guidelines are not policies. Policies are the "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", and guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". THAT is what we are discussing. I find that ignoring or dismissing the basic policy WP:IAR is not always the best way to improve this project, and what is repeatedly being ignored here is that the GNG is not the only means by which notability may be determined.
• Most simply put for this instance... we have a newspaper from a major-enough university, a newspaper verifiable as itself being quoted and referred to by multiple other sources. Such attention makes it worthy of note. And now thanks to Cirt, we have a suitable c-class article which informs our readers even in the lack of comprehensive coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems we disagree about what is or is not common sense for the purposes of determining when it's appropriate to invoke IAR. But in the spirit of choosing one's battles I'll leave it at that -- clearly does not seem headed for a delete close and while I don't think this subject merits an article, it's certainly not egregious. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: The Globe has received multiple forms of recognition from the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2013 it was recognized with 11 "Mark of Excellence Awards"; and the following year it received four from the same institution. My thanks to MichaelQSchmidt for researching and discovering this information. I've tidied up the citations and added it to the article's lede intro sect, as well. Please see DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cirt: It would seem sadly logical that someone who does not wish the article here to serve Wikipedia's readers would not bother to seek (and would indeed dismiss) any source refuting a "claim" of non-notability. And since this paper has been around for 82 years, I'll wager that it has had more than just few awards from its peers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep as it has apparently won significant awards. (Cirt's expansion was also very useful). --Jakob (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a sourced article about an award winning student paper. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:34, 26 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. Shii (tock) 16:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bono[edit]

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

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason provided. Original deletion rationale that this fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no professional or international appearances) remains valid. GiantSnowman 12:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:NCOLLATH by being a first-team All-American (see [17]). Plus, from a quick Google search I found a number of references that shows he meets WP:GNG for things such as being finalist for Hermann Trophy (see [18] and [19]), being part of national team camp (see [20] and [21]), being a first round MLS draft pick (see [22] and [23]), signing with Generation Adidas (see [24] and [25]) and general coverage (see [26]). RonSigPi (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:NCOLLATH requires that an athlete win a national award or gain "national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Being named to the 1st All-American team doesn't confer the individual notability required. Not winning an award also fails to confer notability, no matter how notable the award is, as WP:GNG must still be met; all the references merely provide routine coverage. WP:NFOOTY requires actually competing in a FIFA tier 1 match or in a WP:FPL to be considered notable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH gives awards listed in Template:College Football Awards as example national awards. Being an All-American is the fifth award listed so I think its pretty clear that meets that metric. While I think there can be dispute on what level of All-American counts (1st team vs. honorable mention or AP (NCAA recognized) vs. ESPN (non-NCAA recognized) I think clearly being a 1st team member from the major selection body counts (note NSCAA All-Americans have their own article List of NCAA Division I men's soccer First-Team All-America teams). Moreover, since only one goalkeeper is selected on the All-American 1st team that is the same as being "national goalkeeper of the year" and that is an equivalent positional award to say the Doak Walker Award. RonSigPi (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep –per sources found by RonSigPi. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:34, 20 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) 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and I doubt it meets WP:NCOLLATH. However it appears to meet WP:GNG based on the sources found by RonSigPi. – Michael (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – (edit conflict) Fails WP:NCOLLATH for the reasons I stated above, fails WP:NFOOTY for not yet competing in a WP:FPL or in a FIFA tier 1 match, and fails WP:GNG as all coverage is WP:ROUTINE. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Passes WP:NCOLLATH, needs improving to show GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think he does pass GNG with some (not all) of RonSigPi provided, as well as articles like this from NBC Sports. Also, being a first-team All-American from a prominently-recognized source ABSOLUTELY meets WP:NCOLLATH, we use it for basketball and American football all the time. You could argue that soccer doesn't get the same level of media coverage as those two sports, but as of now the guideline doesn't differentiate specific sports. As an aside, I always find it funny when we see a case like this who has been drafted/signed and hasn't yet played for his new club. The MLS season starts the first week in March, you could conceivably delete this article only to recreate it in a month. Will this guy suddenly meet GNG merely by stepping on the field for Toronto FC? No, the SSGs exist because the presumption is people who play a these levels generate the press sufficient to meet GNG - which this guy has (even if barely). Rikster2 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources aren't in there byt GNG looks met after poking around Google News for 30 seconds.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Per RonSigPi Quidster4040 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per RonSigPi.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 25 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) 13:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Binks[edit]

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

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

Last afd was around four years ago and closed as "no consensus". Arguments to keep were kind of "Other Stuffs Exists" type. I still do not see any evidence of notability of subject, and concerns raised in the last afd by nominator still appears to be valid as subject appears to be failing WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no such source is available to claim notability. Only TV presenter and Anchor with no any achievement. Fails both WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 13:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – WP:JOURNALIST isn't much help, as it says next to nothing about journalists. But I couldn't find anything about awards or anything of that sort. Nothing to base a longer article on. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete - I'm sorry, but "presenters" and similar on-air local TV and radio personalities are fairly common. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. References are either trivial mentions, subjects website, subjects managements website, or an unreliable source.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:35, 27 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 deleted per A10. Materialscientist (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries in various languages[edit]

List of countries in various languages (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)

Where is this going exactly? Wikipedia is not a translation tool. Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 19 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 - non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KAPDA[edit]

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

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

Article about a defunct company? website? referenced only to the website itself, and the accuracy of that has been questioned. No independent sources found : Noyster (talk), 10:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:38, 19 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Interactive Advertising[edit]

Journal of Interactive Advertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a journal's notability is based primarily on its impact. While it is true that this one is not indexed by Scopus or Web of Science, that shouldn't be decisive. Journal of Interactive Advertising has published many highly cited articles and several that have attracted popular media attention. It is also widely held by academic libraries. In principle, the article could be merged into a publisher article (currently Routledge), but I think it better to have a stand alone article. Due to its multiple affiliations over the years, multiple potential merge locations exist, but none is a super obvious destination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep mostly per ThaddeusB. If an academic journal is widely cited, and is held by numerous academic libraries, it stands to reason the journal is a reliable, verifiable source that could (and should) be used to establish the notability of other topics. As such, the topic is inherently encyclopedic, GNG or no GNG. Regarding WP:NJournals, I believe the journal meets criteria 1, via example 6. Likewise is also meets criteria 2 via example 8. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I accepted this at AFC, after checking that it was put out by a prominent publisher Taylor & Francis. Various independent references outside of this point back to the journal include https://books.google.com.au/books?id=BcAdAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA3-PA2004&lpg=RA3-PA2004, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=4gJNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA219. Also [27] and heaps of other reliable sources reference this journal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment concerning the three keep !votes above: That a journal is published by a notable publisher does not make it automatically notable nor does it guarantee future success (I list -non-exhaustively- a few examples on my user page of journals started by such publishers and failing after a few years, never making any significant impact). Neither does it make a journal notable if a handful of other publications cite some individual articles. If the number of citations are notable, a selective database will pick up the journal sooner than later, but at this point, there is no indication that this is or will be the case. None of the sources that you present are anything more than in-passing mentions, none discuss the journal itself. I maintain that this journal does not meet any notability guideline that we have. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NJOURNAL says a journal is notable if it "frequently cited by other reliable sources." Being included in a selective database is used as an example of how to tell this is the case, but is by no means the only way to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The operational word here being "frequently". In order to find a single academic notable, we usually require over 1000 citations. A journal should have much more than a single academic... --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never heard the 1k citations=notable idea for an academic, but none-the-less I added the first couple pages of citation counts from the GScholar link and was already at 5k cites to Journal of Interactive Advertising with no signs of the numbers dropping off. I would suggest it has been cited at least 20k times by other RS, which I would deem sufficient for notability. Searching just for the phrase "interactive advertising", I only see two articles total (both in Journal of Advertising) cited more than often than the top papers published by Journal of Interactive Advertising. Sure it's a highly specialized journal, but given it's narrow scope the citation counts are pretty impressive IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 26 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) 17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Ambassador to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation[edit]

Albanian Ambassador to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (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)

23 "Albanian Ambassador to..." articles were recently nominated and removed after unanimous "delete all" on the 9th:

"fails WP:ORG. this is part of a sprawling series of "Albanian Ambassador" articles that simply confirm an embassy exists, it's also not named like "Embassy of" as in standard. Lastly there is no bilateral article to redirect to. also nominating for same reasons:" - LibStar (talk)

Here's another couple dozen:

Albanian Ambassador to Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Slovenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to the European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to the Holy See (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to the OSCE/UNOV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to the UNESCO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Ambassador to United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Albanian Permanent Representative to NATO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Ambassadors of Albania to Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Permanent Representative of Albania to the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These were culled from Category:Lists of ambassadors of Albania. A further 50 subcategories dare the intrepid at Category:Ambassadors of Albania. Pax 08:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all purely directory listings and merely confirm existence but not notability. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per LibStar. 23 editor (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, no basis for standalone notability. Why not make it a list, though? GregorB (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - diplomati-spam insanity. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Kosovo looks like the only one with some potential, but article us undeveloped and inadequately referenced.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:18, 27 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 withdrawn by the nominator, per WP:WITHDRAWN. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WampServer[edit]

WampServer (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)

Unfortunately, the article fails to satisfy the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Here's one RS. Pax 14:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—And a second WP:RS. Would like to see a third, but these two are substantial enough for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:54, 20 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. withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dr. Wooday P Krishna[edit]

Wikipedia:Dr. Wooday P Krishna (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Dr. Wooday P Krishna|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is constructed exclusively out of primary sources, whereas we need in-depth stories in credible, independent sources to source content from in order to create a proper Wikipedia page. It is unlikely enough has been written about him by academics or press to create a substantive work. CorporateM (Talk) 06:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have moved the article out of WP-space to Wooday P. Krishna. That said, an admin may want to check this page as a potential G4 candidate per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Wooday P Krishna. Deadbeef 08:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep -Okay, Subject may meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard -here are the sources about them, -[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. See also, press-clippings on their official website -it is in four pages, 1, 2, 3, 4 -see here last two. The article however in its present shape reads kinda WP:PROMO and one requires to do copy-edit a lot or simply re-write it from a new end using these sources. And before you say "passing mentions" thing in reply to this post, please -see here the last two. (courtesy ping to CorporateM) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed promo stuffs. I may re-write the article in few hours. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at the sources above, but they were all just articles in which he was quoted in, as oppose to biographical pieces. Didn't really seem to pass muster IMO. CorporateM (Talk) 22:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished renovating the article. I think, last three coverage in here combined with all passing and short coverage make him eligible for inclusion. You may want to see now-version of the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn: Per User:Anupmehra. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 19 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) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Wilson (actor)[edit]

Warren Wilson (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)

Apparent lack of notability; can't find any independent articles on him. Λυδαcιτγ 03:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Λυδαcιτγ 03:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any reliable references to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Other than listings, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that Wilson is notable. Dismas|^(talk) 22:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:13, 27 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) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I-20 (art gallery)[edit]

I-20 (art gallery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article on local art gallery that fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have added the nearest to substantial coverage that I could find touching on the gallery but it is primarily coverage of one exhibition and serves to verify existence. (There is also an Artforum review of the same exhibition, but that only mention the gallery as location, and a New York Observer piece provides passing coverage about a burst pipe flooding the gallery.) Unless someone can locate substantial coverage about the gallery itself, this falls short on WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:07, 27 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. If any notability is there, it's better to start from scratch per WP:TNT. Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Wynne[edit]

Philip Wynne (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)