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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this individual does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article, with most of the sourcing being about his work in the band rather than him as an individual. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Koehler[edit]

Paul Koehler (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)

Relisting for further consideration because my first nomination failed to generate any participation at all after two relists, and an editor is resisting any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect even though AFD consensus is not required for a redirect. The problem here remains that WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to a musician whose notability is within the context of a band rather than as an independent topic — this article is relying mainly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few appropriately reliable sources are not about Koehler per se, but merely namecheck him within the context of the band. So nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). (Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told, which did generate participation and was closed as a redirect for the same reasons that are applicable here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - This person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The references which were accessible or still there lack any extensive coverage of Paul.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. And in borderline cases, the decision should be not to deny readers the content, which won't be available elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish any actual consensus one way or the other. It's not a question of "the correct answer" — if there were a "keep" consensus, then the article would have to be kept even if I still disagreed with that — but there has to be a consensus one way or the other. A "no-consensus" close, which is where the first one landed, resolves nothing — especially when it was "no consensus because nobody participated". Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - Only one of the listed independent sources is actually about the person (a very short interview). The others are either self-published, blogs/forums, or about the band silverstein. @Wehwalt: "Content not available elsewhere" should not be in Wikipedia in the first place, as per WP:OR. --Latebird (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of in-depth coverage of Koehler, independent of the band. Merge anything useful to Silverstein, but there's not enough otherwise to meet WP:NMUSIC or CREATIVE. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Ahmedaalzagtat[edit]

Dr.Ahmedaalzagtat (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 at first glance appears to be copyvio, -fails WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, just when I was writing a deletion rationale, the article was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G11. If speedy declined, we may discuss the article here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete : Fails WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unreferenced BLP that does not meet WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:36, 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 merge to Harold Perrineau#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Perrineau[edit]

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

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

Not a notable actress. Her most notable appearances acording to the article aren't even named roles JDDJS (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content into Harold Perrineau#Personal life; one paragraph should be enough to cover her life as well in her husband's article. Nate • (chatter) 16:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Harold Perrineau#Personal life. I agree with Nate; Perrineua does not need her own article. In the 'entertainer' section on WP:BIO, she fails all 3 points. Her roles are not even named parts. --PDX er1 (talk) 17:38, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker^talk 15:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne J. Caire[edit]

Etienne J. Caire (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)

Claims to fame: ran for governor of Louisiana once, garnering 4% of the vote. Took over a general store opened by his father that later became a historic landmark. His son became a judge. That's about it, and as such, I fail to see how this comes close to WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a well-sourced article about an interesting figure in Louisiana political history: running against Huey Long in 1928, Caire was the last Republican to run for governor in Louisiana until 1952. I don't think our historical coverage of Louisiana politics, and its long term transformation from yellow dog Democrat to Republican bastion, is improved by deleting this content. And, as I noted when I removed the prod notice, if we don't want a separate article, the better solution would be to merge and redirect this content to Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1928, not to delete it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If by "well-sourced," you mean a lot of references, yes. It's not well-sourced in terms of WP:RS references with non-trivial coverage of the subject. Mention of Caire is already included in Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1928. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The 4 percent of the vote is the starting point in 1928 for what would later become a majority Republican state, at least for the time being. The article is important to the history of the Republican Party in Louisiana. The Caire family was a major family of St. John the Baptist Parish. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (chatter) @ 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or redirect to Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1928#Results. Reliable sources are severely lacking. His obituary, almost certainly written by his own family, goes on at length about his military service, family and memberships in social organizations, but fails to even mention his political career. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject died in 1955; there are few Internet sources available on him. The military part says only "a United States Navy aviator in World War II" in reference to his grandson, who is mentioned because he is Caire, II.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops. Wrong obit. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the purely selfish basis that an article this well done leads me to ignore any shortcomings that may or may not actually exist. Pax 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:ILIKEIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as per Ohnoitsjamie current sources are marginal at best, not clear what Caire's impact has been, other than to run unsuccessfully against Huey Long. Not clear how the article is "well done" considering the borderline references, like findagrave, like L'Observateur (only mentions). Needed are several articles talking about Caire's impact.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Two additional sources, a newspaper and an historical dictionary, have been added. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Arxiloxos. Article is well sourced given the era of his life.--TM 13:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stronger arguments on the delete side. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Butthan[edit]

Butthan (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 martial art with no independent coverage. All of the sources are links to articles about the founder and those mention the martial art only in passing. The founder doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria at WP:MANOTE for martial artists nor does the art itself. Being inducted into a martial arts hall of fame doesn't show notability for the founder or the art. Mdtemp (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no indication of notability. It is a hybrid invention with a nationalist flavour.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I didn't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG nor did I see any indication this art was notable based on the criteria for martial arts. Papaursa (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to be notable, there is a National Butthan Championship held annually. Zayeem ^(talk) 08:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether this art exists, it's whether it is notable. There's no indication that it meets GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A search about Butthan shows several reliable news sources and a search with the Bengali word বুত্থান yields more. However, as indicated from the article it is a new (invented) form of art and mostly devised by one person (Mak Yuree). So, I'm still not sure, if it would pass GNG. An alternative is to redirect it to Bangladeshi martial arts#Butthan. Current article is almost a stub, and thus that would not be much of a problem. – nafSadh did say 23:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Young[edit]

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

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

The only source is a link to his boxing record at boxrec.com and that doesn't show anything that meets WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and the achievements required to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 03:02, 30 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 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Amani Singh[edit]

Raja Amani Singh (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 does not qualify the criteria for Notability. No source of information available Mahensingha _Talk 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Yes, no source of information available. It appears to be made-up by creator. I'm seeing absolute zero sources on Google Books, News, JSTOR, HighBeam, INDAFD search engines, etc. It is hard to believe that for their being king and achievements as mentioned in the article, they were not written in any books, journals, etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As with some of Mahensingha's other nominations, I am willing to entertain the possibility that this person (allegedly a "king") possesses regional notability, but the condition of the articles (endemic poor grammar & OR by ESL editors) warrant nuking.
• Delete - subject doesn't meet the requirements for significant coverage per WP:GNG and is therefore not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 29 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 Kutch District. KTC (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kutch Region[edit]

Kutch Region (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 copied from Kutch District, List of proposed states and territories of India, Saurashtra (region), possibly more, but all info is elsewhere and does not need to be combined here. Deunanknute (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kutch District Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kutch District -Kind of convinced by nominator rationale. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:06, 28 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) 09:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kayoom[edit]

Adam Kayoom (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)

He's not notable as an MMA fighter because he has no top tier fights. His BJJ titles are as a blue and purple belt so they don't show notability. I don't see any evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria for kickboxers.Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he did win a World Professional Muaythai Federation belt [1] so that should at least cover WP:KICK criteria. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator - the WPMF title is minor and does not meet WP:KICK.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 30 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) 09:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Tegner[edit]

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

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

This is an unsourced biography. My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage. He also doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) or authors (WP:AUTHOR). Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find anything that shows he meets any notability criteria. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:AUTHOR unless someone comes up with additional sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 30 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) 09:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disapainted[edit]

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

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

No evidence that this web service is notable. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If Ahecht's word "notable" is referring to Wikipedia:Notability, yes, he is right. Fleet Command (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If every Pivot clone had it's own page then we'd have about 15 extra pages just like this, maybe there should be a 'clones' section on Pivot's page. Sunomi64 (talk) 18:05, 29 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 merge to Corcuera, Romblon. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Corcuera, Romblon[edit]

Mayor of Corcuera, Romblon (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 per WP:NPOL, what little info isn't in Corcuera, Romblon can be added Deunanknute (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at least based on the reason given for nomination - the WP:NPOL policy gives guidelines for the notability of politicians not the notability of the office. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE, and, of course WP:N Deunanknute (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Corcuera, Romblon. Some of the content was actually copied from that page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Be sure the table of mayors is on there. Population is about 10,000, so this does not seem to be a post of sufficient stature to rationalize a freestanding article. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Corcuera, Romblon. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  - The Herald (here I am) 13:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jonghyun[edit]

Kim Jonghyun (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 do not see the independent notability for this person; a redirect to Shinee ought to be enough. That he maybe co-wrote a song or two isn't enough to warrant his own article, and at any rate the sourcing here is so atrocious (it's all fan sites, allkpop and such) that there is nothing we can say for sure about his actual importance. The actual text in the article is the usual fan stuff, and look at the sourcing for his supposed solo debut--you get the idea: a fan site, a promotional site, a YouTube video. I'll get to the attendant template porn (he's got one for himself, Template:Kim Jonghyun) later. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article itself can use more reliable sources, but he has recently placed #1 on various music charts and he has done some activities outside of Shinee, like SM the Ballad. If this was like maybe a year ago I would say delete, but now he's getting more well known. However, the template can go away and be deleted because not even individual BIGBANG or 2NE1 members have their individual templates if I can recall. Tibbydibby (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs a lot of work, but he has recently become independently notable. I re-wrote the solo debut section with refs to reliable sources. --Random86 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Recently, he has become quite notable with multiple awards and a new EP. Additionally, all other members of Shinee have their own pages. Dancingbun (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The article receives coverage from reliable sources like K-Pop herald and The Korea Herald. Without this article, the notable EP: Base would become an EP of an artist without an article. This person is borderline notable. MaRAno ^FAN 09:33, 31 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) 09:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIXX Live Fantasia - Hex Sign[edit]

VIXX Live Fantasia - Hex Sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete basically per WP:NTOUR. A few shows do not a notable tour make--first of all, there is no reliable coverage in this article to begin with (it's all fan sites) and there is no discussion of the tour as a tour--it's just a listing of dates and songs. In other words, it's the typical overly detailed fan article. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the exact same reason I am nominating The Milky Way Global Showcase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drmies (talk) 15:54, 23 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  16:45, 23 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  16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seven gigs spread over three months is hardly a tour. This article is purely promotional. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Both fail WP:NTOUR. No reliable sources, just the fanblog media play. Nothing setting these aside from every other kpop tour. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 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) 09:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIXX filmography[edit]

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

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

This is, essentially, nothing but a directory--a list of videoclips, cameos in TV shows (and those kinds of shows are typically vehicles for the stars, of course), and a long list of other TV and even radio appearances. I submit that whatever is noteworthy can be merged into VIXX, and that the rest is more appropriate for a fan site on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 23 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  16:44, 23 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  16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Surely this violates WP:PROMO, as it's basically a zillion Youtube links and Wikipedia is not a links directory( see WP:LINKFARM). Anything here that's important for an encyclopedia article could be put in the VIXX article, per Drmies. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge selectively to VIXX per the above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the encyclopedic information has been buried within list. I think it's best to delete and write into the VIXX article things of value like their 100+ episode youtube series, or if needed create a new filmography. Either way starting from nothing would be easier than cleaning this one up.Peachywink (talk) 18:59, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ghanem[edit]

Ahmed Ghanem (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 a complete mess. It's not a bio of the named subject, but seems rather to be a loose collection of his political interests. The creator and primary contributor User:Hamada2012 has not edited since 30 March 2013. I see two deletion notices on Hamada2012's usertalk page: one for Egyptian cultural project to the world, described as "a cultural project, innovated by the writer and novelist Ahmed Ghanem", the other for Egyptian Revolution From the perspective of Political and sociological and economic, a brief promotional description of a book by Ahmed Ghanem. On the face of it, this all looks like vanity editing. I haven't asked the user; there seems little point, since they stopped editing nearly two years ago. But promoting Ahmed Ghanem does seem to have been all they did on Wikipedia. The same is true of a new user (I suppose perhaps the same person), User:Cultura italiana, who has also added material to Ahmed Ghanem. I have asked that account about possible COI, and also warned them about using Wikipedia for advertising. They have been spamming basically this note about Ahmed Ghanem over many completely inappropriate pages: Tradition, Heritage, Culture of Italy, etc. I hope to get some response from them. Meanwhile, I think we should delete Ahmed Ghanem as advertising, as not notable (compare Google), and (seriously) as not really an article at all, certainly not within shouting distance of being a biography. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 15:33, 23 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  16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - the whole thing is a mess of broken English, and the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. WegianWarrior *talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* keep the article it's wonder full tobic --Cultura spa (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. Even if he's notable, there's almost nothing usable in that article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -per nom. A uncoordinated collection of meaningless verbage. Reads like a cut-and-paste business plan written by an intern to try and get a job. Not relevant in any way to Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and could someone block at least Cultura italiana for spam, please? Most of the edits are getting reverted, but this user is definitely spamming pages and causing others unnecessary work. LaMona (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have taken care of all the socks on this page and have warned the master. If there is continued socking, please feel free to message me. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as badly written and poorly sourced mess — the question of whether he has the degree of notability required to qualify for a Wikipedia article is so utterly impossible to answer from the way this article is written that WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies regardless of his eligibility or lack thereof. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody without a conflict of interest can write and source a properly encyclopedic version which makes a proper claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody. Pax 08:38, 29 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keifer Walsh[edit]

Keifer Walsh (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'm bringing this to AfD after declining a speedy. I think it merits discussion. Many students 'take part' in research that becomes notable, but the extent of their actual contribution to the projects is another matter. Also - is the research here notable? Being a name on a paper is no guarantee of an article on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 23 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  16:41, 23 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  16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A graduate student having 2 papers with his advisor as corresponding author (about average for a grad student, but not notable for WP) and the winner of an award at a student research showcase (also not notable for WP). The article was written by a SPA and it is often the case that when an article is about a grad student, its purpose is to bolster a job application upon graduation (CV: I have been recognized on Wikipedia). This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Three pubs in Google scholar with max citation count = 2 is far below the standard for WP:PROF (even setting aside the difficulty of disentangling the subject's contributions from the contributions of his more notable advisor James Bamburg) and there seems to be no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Puff pieces in school-affiliated sources such as this one don't really contribute towards GNG-notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet GNG or PROF. No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Publications pretty typical of someone at his level. Article written by COI [[2]] i.e. his main research collaborator. Cowlibob (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as specified I would have deleted in as A7, but since it;s come here, let;'s get the full decision. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Getting first named author in a PLOS ONE paper shows the research he has been involved in isn't to be dismissed, however this alone is not notable enough in itself to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are various practice in selecting author names: both by subject field, and idiosyncratic preference. My own advisor, for example, made sure that each of his doctoral graduates would have one paper as first author and one paper as sole author. In biochem, it is usual nowadays for the last author to be the significant one, but it varies, and by itself it proves little -- just as Drchriswilliams says. DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 30 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 Australian Labor Party#Labor Networks. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Environment Action Network[edit]

Labor Environment Action Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is about an organisation tat lacks significant coverage that would establish notability. All but two of the sources are from the organisation's web site. The two non-primary sources do not establish notability as one is a guest post in the newspaper from the a member of the organisation, and the second is about that same person's plan to run for political office. My own searches fail to turn up reliable sources covering the organisation; just more mentions. Whpq (talk) 12:35, 23 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  16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect is okay, although Keep also okay. (revised from simply Keep, by me, given later suggestion of a redirect target) The "news" Google search above yields numerous mentions. This 2011 Sydney Morning Herald article mentions that a review of the Australian Labor Party specifically called for the Labor Environment Action Network to be given a formal role within the party. Their role in the network is often cited for various persons who were "co-convenors" or had other roles in the network. Seems to me that Wikipedia readers would be served by having a short reference article, and that there is enough coverage for an article. --doncram 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mentions are not significant coverage. And the specific article you linked to is in fact a copy of a speech given by Doug Cameron (politician), a member of the Australian Labour Party, so it does not represent independent coverage, and as an added bonus, it's also a single bullet point mention in the speech so even that fails to be significant. -- Whpq (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not imply it was independent of the Australian Labor Party; the mention was within a review of/by the Australian Labor Party, yes, which has to be internal to the party, and it was mentioned of course by a Labor Party person, yes. However, the network is not a branch of the party itself; per the wikipedia article it is affiliated, in that it is trying to change the Labor party. Note to be a member of the network you don't have to be a member of the Labor party. And the network is seeking more influence in the Labor party, sure, but it is not a part of it per se. It's certainly relevant to cover the fact that the Labor party is considering giving it more of a role. Whatever. Nonetheless, I don't mind a redirect terribly. --doncram 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Australian Labor Party#Labor Networks. Pax 02:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - concur that Australian Labor Party#Labor Networks is an obvious target. There isn't sufficient coverage to pass GNG/CORPDEPTH and certainly doesn't appear to be enough to sustain a stand-alone article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:24, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sauna culture in The Netherlands and Flanders[edit]

Sauna culture in The Netherlands and Flanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability has not been established, no reliable sources. AFAIK, there's no definite "Sauna culture" in Flanders and/or the Netherlands. There are sauna's, but that's not "sauna culture" Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Archetypal novel synthesis. Nominator has it right here, nothing put forth indicates that this sauna information represents a "sauna culture". And the geographic restrictions set by the article's title are peculiar even were that not the case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All but one of the references the article is based on are promotional texts or guidelines issued by the sauna industry. No reasoning is given why sauna use in the "Netherlands and Flanders" (why are they mentioned together?) should have its own article. Article creates the impression that there is different sauna use in other Western European countries, which is not elaborated on. Since this nomination the author of this article has created a new article with the same content but a slightly different title, see Sauna in the Netherlands and Flanders. Seems to me a bad faith action. Just removing the word "culture" does not remove the sense that the article implies a cultural aspect that stands out and needs to be mentioned, deserving an article. Which in my opinion it does not. --VanBuren (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (added 'delete' 12:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I've redirected the new article to this title - it looks like the original text including the spelling mistake I corrected in the one under discussion here. Peridon (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promo. The Banner talk 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNo notable "Sauna culture" in either Belgium or the Netherlands. There are sauna's but that's all. Notablility has not been established. Lotje (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the above post from a speedy request on this discussion page to a delete !vote. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting essay, but we don't publish new research. Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matouš Kohout[edit]

Matouš Kohout (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 deletion of Repost was declined because article was not the same however the reasons behind the original AfD deletion are. There has been no significant change over the last six months. Subject does not meet WP:KICK having never even fought for a major organization. Also does not meet WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 23 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  16:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He still hasn't done anything to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. He's won some minor titles, but nothing significant. The coverage is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with the previous comments. He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 30 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nicholls[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet criteria for wp:politician. Haminoon (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely fails wp:politician and nothing else in the article suggests any other criterion for notability. Closest might be connection with the drama group, but I suspect that it would be the group that qualified for the article, not the individual that founded it. And the article is factually incorrect: he is not the the "Parliamentary candidate", since no election has been called and nominations have not closed! He is a prospective parliamentary candidate. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Being an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — if you cannot properly source that he already passed a Wikipedia inclusion rule for other things before he was named a candidate, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. But that hasn't been demonstrated here — we don't even have an article about RicNic itself, for one thing. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in May if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. By "recorded with", he means that he made mixtapes using other artists' songs. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tunit malcom[edit]

Tunit malcom (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)

Unremarkable musician. Only releases are mixtapes and digital downloads. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Could have tagged as A7, but there is somewhat of a credible claim to notability in the article (he apparently recorded with other, more notable, artists). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:45, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekamra Tower[edit]

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

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

Not yet built. Not even sanctioned to any contractor. Is in the proposed phase. May be it is WP:TOOSOON. I doubt whether futuristic things warrants an article. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. It also fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Should I also make a note here that it is a non-notable event that comprises announcement of building a "tower"? No historic significance! No lasting effect! No national or international impact! -Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article uses a December 2013 to support the statement that the building "will be constructed". This September 2014 source states that there is some opposition against the construction of the building on the proposed location. Clearly, a WP:TOOSOON case.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrockstock[edit]

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

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

No notability Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails notability. No RS found on a search. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Page looks not so great, but it got a lot of press. Earflaps (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. I've heard of Wired magazine. Here is another. Some other rag called USA TODAY. --Gaff (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In addition to the above, substantial coverage of this annual music festival for Harry Potter fans in The Ultimate Guide to the Harry Potter Fan, by Erin Anne Pyne. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 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 all five nominated articles. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artefact (band)[edit]

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

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

Cannot find any information about this band, and all the links in the article are dead. Laurent (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating their four albums:

• Son of Solstice (Rupture Music, 2003)
• Magic Spellcraft (Rupture Music, 2006)
• Ruins (Rupture Music, 2008)
• Failure (Self-produced, 2011)

They've all been created by the same two users, and are all based on primary sources only. None of it appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Laurent (talk) 15:26, 15 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  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I hate deleting band pages since I feel they usually don't warrant it, but my google fu failed me on this one. Wish I spoke French, and could maybe look for better reviews that way. (hint anyone?) Earflaps (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I googled it in French language but didn't find anything about it either. The French Wikipedia article has the same problems with poor sources or dead links (I guess the English version is a translation of the French one). Laurent (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd close this as delete but taking care of the paperwork is too complicated when mobile, so I'll leave it for the next schmuck admin: delete. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Chikhani[edit]

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

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

No references, and seemingly no notability, only mentioned that he completed surgery on Trevor Rees-Jones, a low-importance bodyguard. Also has only two real links to it. Jjamesryan Jjamesryan (talk) 20:40, 8 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  21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:PROF, or what would be the the equivalent for surgeons. BakerStMD T|C 02:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just needs improvements--87.242.202.85 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Could use more information if available Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteWeak keep This seems to be the case of a one-event claim to fame, but nothing else. There is only one third-party source here (and there used to be none), the others are articles by the subject. The BBC article and the book listed at #2 probably put this over the edge. The articles by him or about surgery that mention him aren't terribly helpful, unfortunately, and the text is still a bit thin. There were over 30 instances of his name in the Rees-Jones book, and I would encourage filling out the text in the article with more information from the sources listed. LaMona (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Update: LaMona (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it now has 4 third party sources. The fact that there used to be none shows that it has improved since being nominated, and should therefore be kept. (I apologize if I should have put Comment instead of keep at the beginning of this vote, not sure if my old one still counts!) --87.242.202.85 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote more than once, please replace one of them with Comment. Vrac (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Apologies again, I'm new here! --87.242.202.85 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Something of a one-trick pony in terms of notability but with the journal paper and interview I think he scrapes by WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woolamaloo Gazette[edit]

Woolamaloo Gazette (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)

blog with flash-in-the-pan notability, only because someone got fired. Has faded into obscurity since then. The Dissident Aggressor 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to Blogs#Employment. The blog's author, Joe Gordon, just might be notable if one took this incident together with his subsequent blogging on comics and science fiction for Forbidden Planet International, for which he certainly continues to get frequent mentions - if sufficient of these could be shown to be substantial and reliable enough, together with this incident and its coverage, for a standalone article on Gordon, I'd be inclined to convert this article into that one. Otherwise, the incident did have enough notability at the time, as an early (and precedent-setting) employment case involving blogging, that a couple of sentences at Blogs#Employment are certainly justified. PWilkinson (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ViableType, Inc. (agency)[edit]

ViableType, Inc. (agency) (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 lacking non-trivial support and in-depth coverage. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Brody) reddogsix (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete An admin deleted this same article under the name ViableType, Inc. yesterday, and the someone kept removing the speedy delete tag in that case as well. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:07, 23 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  06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a company, doing its job. Article currently not referenced. Peridon (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N. T. R. Bus Station[edit]

N. T. R. Bus Station (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 bus station. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AFAIK, there is no specific notability criteria that says Bus stations aren't notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, actually, there is. It's called Wikipedia:General notability guideline. This article does not meet it. Vanjagenije (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Can always be recreated if this changes. Bus stations have no inherent notability.Charles (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad, Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus has pages exists, why not for Guntur (a part of new capital of AP).--Vin09 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Each place must be considered on its own sources.Charles (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment By GNG, if we are looking for full-page coverage on bus-station in multiple newspapers, magazines, books, etc., then it is very unlikely to exist, not only for the bus station now up for deletion in this afd but also for almost all other bus stations in India. //If passing mentions in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (that's what bus stations are supposed to receive) count -I can provide here tons of them, such as, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. I'm not sure why would a newspaper or magazine write about a Bus Station in 100 words (unless there something real bad happens). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Anupmehra: No, you are wrong. All articles are supposed to receive significant coverage in reliable sources (see: WP:GNG). This policy is for all articles. IF bus stations do not receive such a coverage, than we should not have articles about bus stations. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! Did I really say in my last comment on here, that GNG means "passing mention" or Buses are exempted from it? I think, I said "full-page coverage" that perhaps equate to "substantial coverage". Since I'm writing one more comment, I'll make an attempt to clarify previous one. Bus stations are unlikely to receive full-page (substantial) coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources unless something real bad happens to them. They are supposed to receive passing mentions and that is what this bus station has received. I didn't say that it makes them eligible for inclusion. I'm neutral to this moment. Having made more than 20,000 edits on project, I think, I'm well aware of GNG and other notability guidelines, however thank you very much for linking it to me. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & Charles, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in Eve Online[edit]

List of ships in Eve Online (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)

Trivial listing of items only relevant to ingame play. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:IINFO --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:42, 23 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  06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom - leave this to game wikis Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Gbawden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not covered in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this is more suited to game wikis. There seems to be little encyclopedic that we can say about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This info is relatively useless to an outsider, and there is very little published material to support its notability. Nosaj544 (talk) 16:25, 29 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 AOA (band). j⚛e decker^talk 05:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Jimin[edit]

Shin Jimin (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)

Seo Yuna (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)

singers are not notable outside of his group, AOA (band). They article does not even claim he has ever done any activities outside of AOA. The article has no reliable sources, and I could find no RS about this person separate from AOA.please delete or redirect to they group.(Mrchurang (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Redirect to AOA (band). Subjects are not individually notable, but they are reasonably search terms to point to the band's article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:30, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the band. All three are not independently notable. (Park Choa needs to be linked here so people know this AFD is for three articles.) --Random86 (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to AOA (band). No notability outside the group. Articles written in fankid-ese ("loveline", etc.) and future tense with no reliable sources. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 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 redirect to Bangtan Boys. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Tae-hyung (1995)[edit]

• J-Hope and Kim Tae-hyung (1995) are not notable outside of his group, Bangtan Boys. All his work and filmography is inside of Bangtan Boys or not notable. Please redirect to his group or delete. (Mrchurang (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Kim Tae-hyung (1995) (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)

J-Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note – J-Hope is also nominated for deletion in this discussion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both are not independently notable. Anything important can be included on Bangtan Boys. --Random86 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Bangtan Boys. Both fail WP:GNG. No individual notability outside of their group. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:36, 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. Usersification may be requested at WP:REFUND. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of Feminization of Labor: in California[edit]

Consequences of Feminization of Labor: in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be Original Research. The original seconded PROD was removed by author. reddogsix (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:10, 23 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  06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research, reads like an essay, references are weak (thus unlikely to support a re-write) LaMona (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Carolyngenesis should be proud of their thesis paper, but this isn't the place for it. I do hope they make sure to recycle the useable links/books and research on related topics. Earflaps (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just because it isn't an appropriate WP article doesn't mean it isn't good content. Thanks for making that point. LaMona (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an original essay. Userfy if the creator wants it, I suspect there may be material to be mined here for existing coverage of sweat shops or wage theft, etc. This is not an encyclopedic topic, which is not to say it is an unimportant matter. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 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 Speedy deleted by FreeRangeFrog per G4 and G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 03:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Allie[edit]

Daniel J. Allie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't see that anything has changed since the last AfD, when decision was to delete. Still fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete – per G4 (Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion) and G11 (Unambiguous advertising).

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 Stjørdal. The content seems to already be merged into Stjørdal by User:Lwarrenwiki. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Stjørdal[edit]

Flag of Stjørdal (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)

It's meaningless to have an article about flags for small municipalities; the article talks about the coat anyway. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and close. No deletion-based policy has been presented by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Stjørdal. A flag of a town of 21,000 people isn't going to be notable unless they stick a swastika on it or something. However, the information should definitely be incorporated elsewhere. I'd withdraw the nom and basically just stick the article's contents under Stjørdal#Coat of arms and flag, and also maybe let the creator know before they go through the whole list of flags of Norwegian subdivisions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. I created the article proposed for deletion, and I have merged its content into Stjørdal, as suggested above. Having done that, I would now support changing Flag of Stjørdal into a redirect, pointing to Stjørdal#Coat of arms and flag. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per IgnorantArmies and per Lwarrenwiki's note above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say this looks pretty much like a consensus. There were no supporters for the nom, and I've already edited Stjørdal per the merge proposal by IgnorantArmies. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:21, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association career franchise rebounding leaders[edit]

List of National Basketball Association career franchise rebounding leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested WP:PROD. List fails WP:LISTN, as it hasn't been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". While there may be some articles that discuss leaders for an individual NBA franchise, LISTN is not met with insufficient sources that discuss the grouping of leaders from all NBA franchises. While there are stats sites that can verify this particular list, a policy of Wikipedia is not WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This list of of stats leaders must meet LISTN from sources with prose, not pure stats listings, to alleviate NOTSTATSBOOK concerns. —Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Aspirex (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Franchise scoring leadership does get some independent coverage, but that's about the only stat that this is true for. We love our points. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-done article, and rebounds are an important statistic in basketball (obtaining possession of the ball is the most crucial activity in the game aside from scoring). By way of comparison, see the many list articles for football passing achievements. Pax 09:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebound (basketball) is notable, but nobody is arguing for that article's deletion. Instead, List of National Basketball Association career franchise rebounding leaders has been nominated here, and you have not demonstrated that WP:LISTN is met. WP:PRETTY and a wave at WP:OTHERSTUFF are generally considered arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (which WP:Pretty links to) includes just about everything and anything under the sun (and as such would be more honestly titled "Arguments that annoy me when they're made in support of a conclusion I don't want") - such as the "per noms" that the first two voters here were able to get away with without attracting the ire of circling raptors. Pax 03:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PERNOM that you referred to says: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument ... an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." I'll leave it to the closer to determine if the nomination was comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not an random collection of statistics. The topic does not receive coverage on its own. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator Bagumba's rationale. Frankly, I wish other sports projects were more consistent in enforcing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NLIST. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeflateGate[edit]

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

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

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

Wp:NOTNEWS. The relevant information should be trimmed and moved to 2014 New England Patriots season. I tried myself but was reverted. -- Calidum 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into the 2014 season article. While this is a notable event right now, it isn't notable enough until the investigation is complete, someone is guilty and a punishment is handed down. Otherwise it is much ado about nothing in a game they would have won whether the balls were deflated or not. A standalone may be due in the future but it isn't sure how long it will take for this to reach an official closing. Should be summarized as well per nom, reads like a ticker now.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, what? You admit the event is notable—just not "notable enough". First, the general notability criteria is: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...." I would need an explanation of how the article does not meet this criteria to buy your argument. Oh, and remember that notability is not temporary. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Slow your roll. There is no need to respond to every single point you disagree with. -- Calidum 16:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are valid issues with NortyNort's !vote. How can something be notable, but not notable enough? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ALLARGUMENTS tells that we should encourage full discussions. If an editor wants to respond to every point in the discussion, that's fine. That's why we are having the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, I don't believe the situation is notable to warrant a stand-alone article at this point. By "...this is a notable event right now...", I was referring to the developing situation that is blanketing TV and radio in the U.S. This is good fodder for the news, who likes to speculate especially when the Super Bowl is a week away. We shouldn't be giving undue notability to a situation we can't predict the outcome of or cause behind. This is an encyclopedia. Notability may not be temporary but a subject has to reach the 'threshold' first. Also, as WP:GNG states, "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not,...". That's why were having this discussion.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect per WP:NOTNEWS; if in the future it becomes sufficiently notable for its own article it can be spun back out. ansh666 05:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree/explain: Please explain in detail how the event fails NOTNEWS. The article is not being used as a primary source, this is not a routine event within its own field, the article is not dedicated to a peripheral character—it is the central event, and the article is not a diary of miniscule minute-by-minute coverage. So I fail to see your reasoning. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever you say... ansh666 05:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect, as per WP:NOTNEWS. Esquivalience ^t 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree per above: I disagree with your view per the same reason above. Please explain. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Spygate has its own article, as did Bountygate, and DeflateGate is shaping up to be a similar sort of scandal with similar repercussions. At very least I'd wait until after the SB to see what (if any) punishments are handed down on the Patriots. If it is comparable to either Spygate or Bountygate that would strongly suggest a keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We could always revisit the issue if anything major came out of this. But we shouldn't base decisions on what might happen in the future. It might also be important to note we don't have articles on the Ray Rice incident, salary cap penalties imposed on the Redskins/Cowboys a couple years ago, or Seattle being fined this offseason for CBA violations, something that is not even mentioned in any relevant articles actually. -- Calidum 07:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CRYSTAL involves speculation on future events. This event has already happened and the consequences are unfolding. Perhaps the event does not meet the notability threshold, but I fail to see the relevance of CRYSTAL. -- Veggies (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If stuff like the Ray Rice incident or the Cowboys/Redskins salary cap incidents warranted pages, then someone should create them. Just because one notable event doesn't have a page, it doesn't follow that a notable event that has a page is suddenly not notable.Infinity Project (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to 2014 New England Patriots season per the above arguments. Just because something is commented upon by various news and sports organizations doesn't make it notable.-RHM22 (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree: "Just because something is commented upon by various news and sports organizations doesn't make it notable" Actually, that's the very definition of notability. What more do you want? -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't. Take a look at WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary; specifically, the last sentence of that section. A brief burst of news coverage doesn't indicate notability. News coverage can be an indicator of notability, but it's not the deciding factor. Lots of celebrity-related issues get extensive coverage, for example, but very few are noteworthy enough to warrant their own article.-RHM22 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First, what makes you think this is a "brief burst" of coverage when the end of the coverage (that which defines the brevity) has not come? Second, nominating or agreeing that an article should be deleted places the burden of proof on the nominee or supporter. I haven't read any argument here that I haven't disputed on its validity. -- Veggies (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As absurd as I think the whole "controversy" is, this topic is covered on all major sports news outlets and even on mainstream news outlets. Searching for Defaltegate shows hits on NBCSports.com, ABC News, SI, CNN, NY Post, USA Today, Time, CBS Sports. I think this easily passes WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article should have it's own page, the NFL Spygate and Bountgate scandal do, and as do all other Gate scandals in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. To delete this or merge it into a wider topic would be against the standards set for other Gate scandals, including those in the NFL. Also, it IS a big news story in the USA, and it's also news in the UK as well, where there's very little NFL news coverage [21] Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect too soon. It may well go beyond current news, but we're not there yet. Open to it being created in the future. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What exactly (policy-wise) do you cite to oppose the article's stand-alone existence? Because I'm not sure how something can be "too soon" after it's happened. -- Veggies (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is something called WP:TOOSOON but it generally speaks to pre-coverage of future events. This has already happened. so I don't see how that applies. As to the point about "have we passed the point where it is notable" -- that's the purpose of this discussion. To just say "it's not here yet" is not really an argument. Please, why is it not "there" yet? (you may be right, but I can't agree with just a statement without reasoning).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created the original redirects that previously pointed to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Sports, fully expecting this would become an article in the near future after more press coverage had become available. It's clear this is a serious, major news item. The question of it passing WP:NOTNEWS seems clear to me; that guideline notes we consider "the enduring notability of ... events". There's little question this will have enduring notability; witness Spygate. Witness the bounty scandal. Most importantly, witness the >5 million hits for "deflategate" in Google News [22]. This story is absolutely huge, not a minor hiccough in the 2014-15 NFL season. It doesn't matter what deflategate becomes or doesn't become in the future at this point. It doesn't mater what the penalties may or may not be. It is huge now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a huge issue and is superseding any and all discussion about the actual game that is going to be played. (Seriously, has anyone seen or heard any analysis about the game? They are going to play the game, right?). I suppose this could wind up blowing over, but there is no reason to assume it will, considering that the nonstop coverage continues to not stop. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep far surpasses the general notability guideline. The WP:NOTNEWS issue is irrelevant in this case: yes it is a current event, a recent event, but it is also a notable event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• BALLGHAZI. LOL. OK, the issue deserves coverage somewhere. If this isn't kept, it should be maintained as a redirect.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per above. We don't know if this is just rumours or not. In any case, it's a borderline WP:CRYSTAL problem given the lack of definitive proof of something actually happening. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This isn't a temporary thing that will go away and be forgotten in a few days, any more than Spygate. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep things like bounty-gate are talked about and referenced to forever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sorry, but this passes as noatable, it's already being talked about more than the super bowl (the expected topic of conversation at this time of year), it involves a team that has already been involved in various other "gate" scandals, and as a coverup has become glaringly obvious, this will have major repercussions in the league. My feeling is that most people voting delete are not fans of American Football and simply don't realize just how big this is. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The volume of news coverage makes it clearly notable. One off-beat example: Deflategate is a significant topic of discussion at the website of National Review, a magazine about American politics -- not a sports magazine or a general news magazine. [23] — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage is frankly a little over-inflated, and should probably have a pin stuck in it, the google hits have ballooned, stretched and distended from 5 million to 6 million hits since the afd was puffed open, and this thing is still blowing up. Ballghazi has become one of the most overblown football controversies in a long while, and there is ample coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Don't let the air out of this one. Cbl62 (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, nice I count 7 puns in your 3 short sentences... -War wizard90 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Notability is not temporary" is being turned on its head. It actually says once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. There can be no question that the coverage of this event has been signficant. Also, it isn't WP trying to do journalism; it's summary and explanation of what reliable news sources say, same as any other current event. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This event is equivalent in propensity to 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy, and is already covered in multiple reliable sources. If this article is not kept, it should, at a minimum, be merged into 2014 New England Patriots season. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Patriots may have a tendency to cheat but this is not on the same level as SpyGate right now. Just a lot of speculation with few facts.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's quite notable, and not a mere side trip on the 2014 season; on Boston sports-talk radio, it is crowding out all other topics. I bet it's the main angle on the Super Bowl nationwide in the two-week build-up to the event, including discussion of whether the league wants the controversy, wants it now, and is artificially prolonging it. I came to WP (going straight to the redirect at "Deflate-gate") to see if there were angles I had missed; the assertion that D'Qwell Jackson did not notice anything strange about the ball he intercepted was news to me. I plan to return to the article to read a summary of emerging forensic details. Needs an unbiased mention of predisposition against Belichick based on the Spygate transgression. Echoing Lawrence King above, it is not just being discussed outside sports media, it is being set against current events in Arabia by Limbaugh and Levin to debate U.S. values and engagement. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to mention, over the last 4 days this page has received an average of 4,087 page views per day! -War wizard90 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The amount of coverage the scandal is getting justifies an article. Several unusual things happened, which is why journalists are flocking to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The idea this should be deleted is farcical on its face. If you want to merge it, then use the merge tag. Which would also get turned down, but isn't absurd. 66.87.67.78 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the article gives accurate, properly sourced information about an event, and a significant number of visitors have been reading the article to learn this information, but Wikipedia's policy still wanted the article deleted (which I doubt), then the policy, not the article, would be the problem. Tbtkorg (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. For those who are supporting deletion and have quoted WP:CRYSTAL, it works both ways: We currently do not know whether in the future this actually erupts into a real scandal (thus historically significant), or it is merely a false positive. It is only after it is finally resolves that can we have a more in-depth discussion on whether it was historically significant or just WP:NOTNEWS. Deleting it now and then finding out later that it was actually significant is not productive. Better to err on keeping it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep - A number of editors above are relying on the volume of significant coverage in the last week to establish the notability of this purported "scandal"; that analysis is only partially correct. Per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, not only must a subject event receive significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, but news events must also establish their enduring notability; that does not typically happen in the space of a week. Specifically, WP:NOTNEWS states in relevant part:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Furthermore, WP:EVENT also states several criteria to consider in evaluating the notability of a recent news event, specifically:

1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.

2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).

3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.

4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

Having set forth the correct standards to evaluate the notability and suitability of this event for inclusion as a stand-alone article, I am now going to hedge, and say that I believe, but I cannot say with 100% certainty, that Inflategate will have "enduring notability". Given the volume of significant coverage to date, the high-profile nature of the NFL, the Super Bowl, the New England Patriots, and quarterback Tom Brady, I believe that this "scandal" will have significant legs to establish its enduring notability per the applicable criteria. If Brady and the Patriots are exonerated, and no one is talking about this event in 90 days, we may revisit this issue via a 2nd AfD and/or a possible merge at that time. In the mean time, let's source the article properly with mainstream reliable source footnotes per WP:V and WP:RS, try to maintain a neutral point of view and encyclopedic tone per WP:NPOV, and not clutter the article with extraneous factoids and trivia per WP:UNDUE. This topic can be properly treated in about 500 words of straightforward, factually stated main body text; let's not create text that restates redundant coverage of the NFL, Super Bowl, AFC playoffs, New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and the history of prior alleged cheating scandals in the NFL and pro sports generally. Focus. Please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not a criteria, but I note if you click on "what links here" you already get a fairly length list for the DeflateGate article. I appreciate a lot of those are because it already appears within Template:New England Patriots, but that in itself is at least a little telling. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Only one article, List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, links here outside the template as of now. Epic Genius (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional redirect to 2014–15_NFL_playoffs#AFC_Championship_Game:_New_England_Patriots_45.2C_Indianapolis_Colts_7; I agree with Dirtlawyer1 on basically all points. Whether this survives as an article really depends on the outcome. I think if the Patriots are found to have systematically and intentionally underinflated balls, then this article will have sufficient content for a stand-alone article; but if they escape sanction, or are sanctioned but not found to have underinflated balls deliberately, then the whole thing can probably best be described in a single paragraph. Most of this article is padding anyway, including a thorough recap of the game which is already and more appropriately covered in the location to which I propose a redirect. Aspirex (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect information related to rules and alleged rule violation into Football (ball)#American and Canadian football --Thoken (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep. This is covered in numerous reliable sources. While there have been multiple underinflated balls used in football games over the years, this one is quite significantly covered. It may be deleted later if this event has no significant impact in the future, though, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Epic Genius (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seems to be an overwhelming majority here to keep the article. Can we take the tag off the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be tempted to snowball keep this and close the debate. But, in this case I think waiting the full seven days would be quite helpful, as it would definitely quiet any debate on the AfD being properly run, etc. Let it run its course. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a democracy.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't care either way, but this thing happens all the time here. Some minor event is blown out of proportion by the media. Someone creates a Wikipedia article for it, and it's quickly put up for deletion and gets some initial delete votes. But as the coverage ramps up, everyone appears and votes keep, after all, it may be insignificant and the article may be destined to be no more than an over-detailed stub, but look at all of the coverage! The article is kept, and because it overwhelmingly survived an afd it is guaranteed a long life. Maybe Wikipedia needs to adopt a one month policy for afds on current events, then we can see where it stands. I can guarantee you that in a month (or, more accurately, once the SuperBowl is over) this event will mostly be forgotten and will seem a lot less major. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response then it can be re-nominated for deletion at that time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you ever tried nominating something for deletion within a year of an afd? If someone did put it up in a month, it would be crowded with "Speedy keep. There was an afd last month" comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think great care needs to be taken here. It could come down to physics and not foul-play which would counter-act the significance and weight of this 'gate'. Yes, I know that professor is probably a Patriots fan... --NortyNort (Holla) 02:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe that "Consensus will be to keep it so we should delete it" is a valid reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did I say that? No. You missed my point entirely, so here it is in simple terms: There should be a rule preventing afds of an article on a current event within a month of it happening. Whoever nominated this should have known it would be kept because it's a current event getting headline coverage so it SEEMS more important than it is. In a month, we would have a good feel for the actual notability of the event and could make an objective decision as to whether the article can stand on its own or should be merged elsewhere (personally, I think an article for the game itself would make more sense, but I don't care either way). But because this afd happened, we can't do that. Any afd for the next while will end in a snowball keep. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep, that's what you said. FYI, articles do get deleted the second or third time through AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think your proposal is a good idea on its face, but then we'd encounter problems when people create a nonsense article about an obviously minor event (but maybe not obvious enough for speedy delete), but no one could nominate it for deletion for a month. It would have the opposite effect in that case.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Much as I hate this story and feel like it's getting way too much attention (and my gut feeling the NFL's not actually going to do anything), this story has been getting a lot of coverage and it is influencing how people feel about the New England Patriots organization as a whole. I think this incident will be well remembered.Infinity Project (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Or maybe, at least, merge with a redirect. In any case, I think it's useful to have a place where people can go to to find out "what the heck is this" about events creating media hoopla. The very fact that it's caused a media hoopla seems to indicate some sort of historical value. I appreciate the fact that there's an article here, so that there's somewhere I can go to that's not a news site and isn't written as if I already know what the event is all about, and require me to dig through dozens of past media articles and little snippety updates to find out what the heck they are talking about. This wiki article is serving an important encyclopedic purpose by simply being a reference that one can look to to get a better overview of a topic that's causing a cultural stir, no matter how inane it may be. AaronW from ABQ (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Love it or hate it, this is a notable event in NFL history and will be discussed for years to come. It's not hurting anything to have an article on it. AtlasBurden (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's too soon (or Wait and See) - In my opinion it's too soon to judge whether this is only a temporary news story that'll fade with time or whether this will become a story with a lasting effect. Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per AaronW from ABQ, I actually Googled this term to find out what it meant, and the article told me exactly what I wanted to know. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a lot of sources on this and there are only more coming out all the time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is it's own topic in the new, we should not change that. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's too early to tell how large DeflateGate will actually become. It only happened about a week ago, and the media tends to over-exaggerate on minor issues—a lot. As of now, it's a relatively minor issue that only has such hype due to the Super Bowl only being, at the time this began, two weeks away. Here's what I'm thinking: if DeflateGate is still being discussed about a week or two after the Super Bowl, then the article can stay. If DeflateGate goes away shortly after the Super Bowl, then the article may be deleted. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This has achieved enough notoriety to warrant its own article. Jeffrey Henning (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If it is kept (looking likely), then it should probably be renamed. The BountyGate article is named New Orleans Saints bounty scandal and SpyGate article is named 2007 New England Patriots videotaping controversy. For consistency we probably should use something dull sounding like 2015 New England Patriots deflated footballs controversy. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Legis: A move request has already been brought up, but has not closed. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 04:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Shortly: I understand the main argument for deletion is that this event is not noteworthy. I'll just mention one statistic: Currently (Jan 27, 2015, 00:27 EST), a Google search for "Deflategate" yields about 17,400,000 results. Ynagar (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to having enough notability for its own subject, regardless of how true it is, or how much anyone agrees with it needing this much coverage (I'm one if those people, but I can't let that affect an encyclopedia.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's become notable as a current event. It's not unreasonable to think that people would come to this page in order to understand the big picture rather than go through several different news articles. While I don't think that DeflateGate should be the name of the article, I do think that there are enough independent sources and information that it can stand on its own without being merged or turned into a redirect. HarlandQPitt 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is more than a single news story; it's an ongoing controversy that may have significant repercussions beyond the New England Patriots 2014 season. I came to this article because I wanted background that news stories (still appearing over a week after the game) no longer provide. Bennetto (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable. Also, readers unfamiliar with the controversy may stumble upon the word "DeflateGate" in the general media and come to WP to find answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkie82 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on Keep. Notable, immense coverage across the nation/world, will sadly be brought up often whenever this championship is discussed later, or Brady, or Wilson, or etc.... Buggie111 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it potentially affected the match, it has potential repercussions for Belichick, Brady and the Patriots, and because even the BBC has devoted nine stories to it (as of posting this) and that is about half as many stories as the BBC do on the NFL in a whole year. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and snow close — There's been a blizzard of media attention toward this (I.e, a new article published every few hours). Whatever the NFL decides, it is likely to be controversial for a long time, so it will most likely have lasting notability. Since the overwhelming consensus here is obviously to keep the article, IMHO it may be advisable for an admin to close this early. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 03:11, 28 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.