< 30 January	1 February >

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzword[edit]

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

Ain't nothing but a dic def. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the right sources, it would be easy to construct an encyclopedia article about the development of buzzwords, their usage in business, their effect on creating an insider-outsider dichotomy, etc. The further reading already cites some works that concentrates specifically on buzzwords; I'm not simply imagining that they exist. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nixdorf (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this per WP:JUSTAVOTE. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is wonderfully ironic — demonstrating the use of fashionable jargon without understanding or applying it correctly. For some examples of analysis of the general concept, please see On the buzzword approach to policy formation, What Makes a Management Buzzword Buzz?, Management Fads and Buzzwords. Andrew D. (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's scope for this to be more than a dictionary entry. TheBlueCanoe 17:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing a lot of 'Keep' arguments here. In order to keep this article, the sources that you guys found must be added in there. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good but not required AfD isn't cleanup. The question is if the topic is notable see WP:NOTE "This page in a nutshell" which says "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." -- GreenC 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deletion on DICDEF grounds is not the same as notability. There does have to be something more than a dictionary in the article as Wikipedia is not a dictionary (as opposed to notability-related arguments, which merely requires that sources exist). That said, I just tried to find sources about the concept of a buzzword as opposed to merely using it to label this or that term and had a surprisingly hard time. Maybe it would be appropriate to merge to Jargon? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jargon without predjudice to recreation if it shows there that it can sustain an article about it as a subject beyond that of a kind of jargon. I did find some good sources. "Beat the Buzzword" by Christine Long in Charter looks good, but I'm accessing it behind a university paywall. It's an article about buzzwords, but it also starts like this: "The use of buzzwords can be annoying - and confusing. What can you do to keep up to date with the latest jargon?" (emphasis mine). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with merging. I don't agree with keeping. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take another look, please. I have expanded it and added references; it's not a dicdef any more. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Fouché[edit]

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

Self-sources, no WP:RS to show any notability. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion - no sources. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any RS.TheBlueCanoe 17:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No notability or RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:42, 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. SilkTork's argument (which was not rebutted) provides the most clear and concise explanation as to why this is not SYNTH. postdlf (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling singles[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sales figures for these songs are certainly useful info and absolutely belong in articles pertaining to the respective songs. However, to take information from various sources that mostly pertains to individual songs, not best-selling singles as a collective group, and compile our own list of best-selling singles, certainly seems like a SYNTH violation.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SYNTH is irrelevant to our maintenance of lists. The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN and this list obviously passes this because best-selling singles are routinely considered as a group in charts of top singles for the week, year or all-time. Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable publication posted a list of the best-selling singles of all time globally, you might have a point. Lists of best-selling singles are often published, but they are usually by country. Most of the songs on this list, particularly recent additions, have not been discussed as part of a group of best-selling singles in outside sources. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, LISTN is part of a guideline, while SYNTH is part of a policy. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not an example of original synthesis. TheBlueCanoe 17:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I currently have mixed thoughts, tending toward the opinion that this article has extremely serious problems as it's currently written, making it more like a collection of indiscriminate information than an actual encyclopedic article about its supposed topic. I don't feel that the article's main contents – very high-selling singles alongside their combined sales figures – are violating SYNTH; as explained in WP:What SYNTH is not, "summarization [of numeric data] by sum, average, etc. ... should not be confused with original research." The sales sum accompanying each single's entry in the list, then, is pretty clearly fair game.

However, the contention of this article is that all these singles, having reached the (as far as I can tell completely arbitrary) cutoff of 5 million copies sold worldwide, are among the very best-selling singles of all time. This is increasingly difficult to believe, especially now that the article is mainly populated by fairly but not astonishingly high-selling singles from the digital era, during which singles sales have been extremely high, especially since the late '00s. As Chase correctly notes and as I noted in the talk page to justify the deletion of the "list of artists with most best-selling singles" section, the vast majority of this article is not based on comprehensive reports centered on the question of which singles are among the world's best sellers. Indeed, of all the sources cited here, only a few – Joseph Murrells's The Book of Golden Discs: The Records That Sold a Million (which was published in 1978[!]), some random blog post from "listzblog.com" (almost certainly not a reliable source – its writing style actually suggests that its text was plagiarized from Wikipedia articles), and the IFPI year-end digital reports going back to 2007 – offer anything resembling a comprehensive survey of worldwide best-selling singles, and all are very restricted to certain time periods. The vast majority of the article, then, consists of what editors of widely different interests across Wikipedia happened to have bothered to add to the article upon noting that a single by an act whose page they were editing had certifications or sales figures summing up to over 5 million. Considering that ALL of the worldwide top ten best-selling singles (as stated in IFPI's reports) for the past seven years have sold WELL over 5 million each, it probably isn't a stretch to say that reaching this arbitrary threshold of 5 million is actually achieved fairly commonly in recent years, and that the piecemeal manner by which this article has been built likely fails to include a very significant number of singles that qualify by this (again arbitrary) standard.

It therefore seems incredibly risky, if not outright irresponsible, to conclude that all the singles that have been listed here are certainly among the best-selling singles of all time; this in particular seems to be the kind of false conclusion (4 million in the USA[ref 1] + 1 million elsewhere[ref 2] = ONE OF HISTORY'S BEST-SELLERS!!) that violates SYNTH. Even more worryingly, I often notice that articles for singles that are listed here include claims that they are among the best-selling singles ever, with only a wikilink to this page as support for that contention. I believe this article could be useful and suitably encyclopedic if it can be radically revised to ensure that only singles that are without a doubt among history's best-sellers are included. This would involve carefully reaching consensus on an appropriate threshold (or thresholds, if editors believe different eras should be treated differently) based on the few available sources that treat the subject of worldwide best-sellers comprehensively (the Murrell book and the IFPI reports), not the arbitrarily-selected 5 million. Furthermore, it should be ensured that available sources out there have enough information to make the list of singles qualifying for that threshold as complete as possible. Unless this can be achieved (and perhaps it cannot), I think the article should be deleted. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You summed this up quite nicely, Mmrsofgreen. My SYNTH point was not in regards to the sales figures, but of including songs not discussed as part of a group of best-selling singles in this list. It is telling that there are very few sources here that are actually relevant to a group of best-selling singles, and not just the stats for any song that has sold a certain amount. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now that I reread the original nomination. Thank you for clarifying. I do agree that it's worrying that very few of the singles listed here (arguably just the two sourced by Guinness World Records) are actually discussed in the context of all-time worldwide best-sellers. All other sources that address worldwide best-sellers either do so just for one particular year or are hopelessly out of date, so I find myself doubting whether an appropriate criterion for when editors call a single 'all-time best-selling' can even be established, since such a criterion should ideally not be made up by Wikipedians but instead be derived from a reliable source addressing the topic explicitly. (And I'd argue that 5 million is certainly far too low, given just how many singles qualify.) As a "List of five-million-selling singles," this article would be more-or-less fine, although the article's subject would rightly be criticized for being non-notable and arbitrary. However, as a "List of best-selling singles" that purports to be documenting the best-selling singles in the history of commercial music, it is very poor. (For other editors' consideration, an example of an all-time best-selling singles article that is adequately sourced, see List of best-selling singles in the United Kingdom; the starting-point of this article is the Official Charts Company's comprehensive treatment of the topic.) Mmrsofgreen (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is valid. Concerns about sourcing and/or presentation of material are standard for all articles, and are resolved by discussion and/or editing. As regards Synth: When compiling lists or articles, editors organise the material alphabetically, chronologically, thematically, by size, shape, colour, mode of operation, etc. This is part and parcel of the everyday editing process. If we deleted every article which has organised material into some semblance of order then we'd have very few articles left. If we have a reliable source which says X has 1 million sales, Y has 2 million sales, and Z has 3 million sales, then placing X, Y, and Z into sales order in an article is not just valid, but a very helpful thing to do. This is not Synth, this is everyday editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MiewEN (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. In deletion discussions, editors are encouraged to state why they think an article should be kept or deleted. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For I don't agree with the article's nomination for deletion and do rather appreciate the work as whole which has been built for a decade so far, simple as that. There is a number of Wikipedia maintenance templates you can use instead or improve the article yourself, not chasing nominations for its deletion. Sorry to disappoint you as well. MiewEN (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the work is appreciated or even valuable is not the issue here. I believe the work in this article is very valuable, but I doubt very strongly, based on Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, whether it is sourced adequately to belong here. To me, for reasons I've outlined above, this article/project seems more appropriate for an online music forum or fan site than for Wikipedia. Furthermore, that the article has been here for a long time does not exempt it from being considered for deletion. From 2005 until nearly 2009, Wikipedia used to have an article for the United World Chart, a non-notable chart compiled by hobbyists under the name Media Traffic, plus many articles for lists of that chart's "number one hits." (Incidentally, that project is also a piecemeal-compiled chart that purports to contextualize/rank worldwide record sales performance.) These were all (rightly) deleted following nomination and discussion despite half of the editors who chimed in being reluctant and opposed to having the page deleted. I'm not convinced any of Wikipedia's available templates and so on could mitigate this article's most serious and pressing issues, which are chiefly based in whether an acceptable article about this topic can be written given the rarity of reliable sources explicitly addressing the topic of the article. Looking at the history of the article, it appears this has been an issue ever since it was created in 2006. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the value of the article is just the issue when it comes to its nomination for deletion in the first place, and that's what makes our decisions also different. Seems like you’re writing a book, though. Guess I know the ending and that's what makes us different too. Thanks for respecting that. MiewEN (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, nope. When someone nominates an article for deletion, the issues raised by the person who nominated the article are those that are in dispute, not the non-issues that other people want to pretend are the issues to make its nomination easier to dismiss. The value of an article with this topic was not disputed in the nomination. Our main difference appears to be that you feel terse snark is a suitable stand-in for discussion. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In dispute is the nomination as such, so face that matter of fact without repeating oponents as evident what issues (should) have been raised here instead. Some of us don't support deletion of articles for one-purpose reason that can be handled otherwise. End of the story. MiewEN (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This list is obviously eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia dedicated to provide readers what they are going to be looking for. This article has been viewed 42565 times in the last month. Its deletion would certainly be of great loss to an encyclopedia. If you are looking for the best-selling singles, you are not going to know which song article to look at. You wuld certainly like an encyclopedically formatted list. The argument you wrote can literally be used to delete every musical discography article. But they are definitely notable. A list of reliably sourced encyclopedic content. MaRAno ^FAN 17:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the topic is not the issue raised by the nomination. The popularity of the article and whether a resource about this topic can be found elsewhere are also irrelevant. (Actually, if there is no reliable source about this topic elsewhere, the article probably SHOULDN'T be on Wikipedia!) The argument set forth in the nomination could not be used to argue for the deletion of any discography article because those articles are appropriately sourced and do not assert conclusions not indicated by any of the cited sources. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptree sneeze[edit]

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

Just as not every fart is notable, not every sneeze is notable. Delete for being a WP:ONEEVENT, all sources published in March 2014. Otterathome (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No enduring significance.TheBlueCanoe 17:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:GNG. Not all sources were published in the same month. I am currently working on adding them.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but willing to be convinced otherwise -- especially if someone actually writes it into a score. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; news-cycle and fluff coverage only, not notable or encyclopedic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS as/and others above. — Ched : ? 16:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "The event gained national attention" - Well unless I've been living under a cage for the past year then this is complete bs!, Anyway nothing of value here so get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 5 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowtown[edit]

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

No sources provided for over 2 years. Otterathome (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added refs. This community is a "Site of Special Scientific Importance" according to the UK government. If you love triblodites, you'll love Meadowtown. Added image. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep aside from being covered by multiple reliable sources, the nominator appears to have a grudge with me, and has been hastily trying to exterminate my work, a WP:BATTLE violation. They obviously ignored WP:BEFORE and I believe this is a bad faith nomination.Qxukhgiels (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing improvements. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Lisa Christiane[edit]

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

Appears to be autobiographical and doesn't appear to be notable. Beauty pageant contestents are not generally well-known in New Zealand. Haminoon (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually Speedy Delete would be better. Clearly self-promotional. No reliable sources whatsoever. Fails GNG, SIGCOV, COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a national titleholder, basically seems to be self-promotional. Mabalu (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, reads like a COI case.LM2000 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very little sources to be notable. Self-promotional. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Spy With A View[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Supposed review is a user comment. Supposed "Best Scene" award is being lumped in with a bunch of Bronze-level (not Gold, not Silver, which were both awarded), and the award-giving group (Association of American Schools in Central America) is of dubious significance in the realm of drama. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that this show has received many productions across the world. Whether bronze, gold or silver it is still an award. The review may have been a user comment but surely it is still a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickyshe (talk • contribs) 21:02, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it's not clear that this has "received many productions around the world", we do not have a reliable source indicating that. As for being still an award, it looks like EVERYTHING at the festival gets an award ("Medals for overall ratings will be awarded to all participants who meet the criteria") --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The play is already listed on the playwright's Wikipedia page. The "award" is from the Association of American Schools of Central America, which is hardly big in theater circles. There are no significant third-party sources in the references, and I didn't turn up any. LaMona (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planet F1[edit]

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

Little more than a blurb created by the founder in order to drive hits to their website. No independent coverage, fails WP:NWEB. QueenCake (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Practically an advert. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of independent coverage to demonstrate notability. TheBlueCanoe 17:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did like the page, but it's down now most times anyway... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:13, 3 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Drilling and Coil Services[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and borderline advertising (tagged for over a year, no responses to talkpage request for fixing it). DMacks (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourced to press releases and databases, and I'm finding little more than that in my searches (some discussion of stock prices, this coverage of a new device in Drilling Contractor magazine.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only coverage I'm finding is in the company's own press releases. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:21, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the WWE Universe[edit]

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

Contested Prod and is unlikely to meet speedy delete criteria. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT; the GNG tags which I placed on the article have been removed. The lede states that they are better known as the Brass Ring Club, which has a separate article. LM2000 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 21:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. --makk3232 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they might become more notable in future - depending if they win the tag titles and are featured prominently. But now? Not good enough. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RECENTISM. Also, made up name. Maybe a one time off hand reference. The team of Cesaro and Kidd has not been given a name (other than that) and Rose is not a permanent part of anything. So WP:GNG also applies. oknazevad (talk) 13:21, 6 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) Mr. Guye (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ballacrye Corner[edit]

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

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:34, 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) Mr. Guye (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School House Corner[edit]

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

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at the deletion discussions pages and talk pages for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. I fixed a link in above comment. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too.

There were previous AFDs, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Mauls (talk) 20:48, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appledene[edit]

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

Non-notable location or road corner (type of subject is unclear). Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:34, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man[edit]

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

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at the deletion discussions pages and talk pages for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)16:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:35, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26th Milestone[edit]

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

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at the deletion discussions pages and talk pages for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)16:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:37, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandish Corner[edit]

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

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at the deletion discussions pages and talk pages for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ludicrous, completely-expected, retaliatory, knee-jerk; more than just suggestive of abandonment and abuse of Wikipedia's supposedly-inherent GF ethos. I wrote in November: "I have now had the opportunity to go through contributions to ascertain that the same editor has nominated for deletion - or intends to nominate - many more TT Course locations than I originally surmised.", and, "Using the catch-all ploy of 'notability' is inappropriate where consecutive historic physical localities are involved." and "this is one location in a consecutive series" and " the whole doesn't work with pieces of the jigsaw missing." and "10 or so articles already, what next??" and "Frankly I am dismayed" As agljones has stated elsewhere, the TT course is unique; it merits facilitation, not interference and counter-production.
I predicted these wholesale intended-deletions, so blame me. Accordingly I developed this Brandish article in December 2014 - much as I done with Ginger Hall (throwing it together at the kitchen table) which was eventually deleted by agljones [1] (it's gone but the redirect still works) after incorporation and, despite consensus to merge, Agljones did what he saw fit. He has been allowed to assume complete control of any IoM article, contrary to WP:OWN witnessed, self-confessed, at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course where he displays resentment of other editors' contributions and differing styles. This is contrary to Wikipedia fundamentals. My work is seldom reverted or deleted, but I guess I could list 20 such total deletions by @Agljones:
Passively allowing a one-stripe editor like agljones to exercise dominance over such articles as Snaefell Mountain Course has already resulted in text-walling; incorporating more articles will just worsen readability. There is no restriction on server space - all the past versions are kept, albeit some are hidden - so why the obsession with what was intended to be deletion, of many articles, per se?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not have deleted any articles as I do not have administrator rights for article deletion. The article that he refers to has been deleted by the editor that has repeatedly nominated the articles listed above and also deleted four(?) other articles without referring to the article deletion process. I have previously stated that I accepted that perhaps some streamlining of the number of articles in respect to the Snaefell Mountain Course was inevitable and if you check the article deletion nominations you will find that I have not expressed a vote in all of the article nominations. I have accepted that some of the small articles may be deleted due to lack of notability (one article was a duplication). In respect to the article about about the Ginger Hall, I had found some secondary sources to address the criticism in regard to notability. I was in the process of trying to find another written non-partisan source in regard to the Ginger Hall which had been proving difficult to locate and the article was deleted unexpectedly without referring to the deletion process. Unsure how next to approach this situation, due to the ongoing problems with notability and Original Research (OR) I then removed a small paragraph from the main Snaefell Mountain Course in respect to the Ginger Hall which had been placed in the section reserved for parts of the course for competitors names as the information was inaccurate, lacked notability and missed completely the main points(it could have been mistaken for a commercial advert). I was considering reinstating the article for the Ginger Hall after the problems of notability had been resolved. I have had previously reinstated articles after sudden unexplained deletions and this includes the articles for Governors Bridge and Sarah's Cottage(this article was deleted as it conflicted with a teenage Canadian punk rock group now defunct).
  
  In regard to the criticisms of a 'one-stripe' editor and if you refer to my contribution logs and you will find that I have not deleted any articles as I do not have any article deletion rights. I do not resent differing styles or other contributions. The problem has been that I tend not to interfere with other editors contributions or differences in styles and where I have rewritten an article I have tried to incorporate the previous information. The references that I have made to style and other contributions is in regard to the main Isle of Man TT article. If you refer to the various talk pages a consensus was reached by other editors on how the best way to progress the historic Isle of Man TT. If you again check the contribution logs you will find that I have followed that consensus. I have also partly completed a re-write of the main Isle of Man TT article and it follows the style of articles such as the Tour de France which is a major change from the current article with different contributions from different editors including myself.
  
  I have checked my contribution logs and I can not find the twenty article deletions that you refer too. Again, I do not have any article deletion rights. I do not assume complete control of any IoM article and again if you refer to my contribution logs you will find that I have not made any contribution to the main Isle of Man article for a number of years and I am unsure when I last made a contribution (perhaps prior to 2009). There are a wide range of Isle of Man articles and I tend to concentrate on the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix results(as no other editor is interested in such a boring task). I also in the past have taken long Wiki-breaks of six months or more. I have not made any conscious decisions to adopt and Isle of Man article as an editor or exercise dominance on any IoM article. However, as I have mentioned previously I have intervened in the article in respect to the list of List of Snaefell Mountain Course fatal accidents. I have tried to maintain a low key style to this article and asked contributors to be more respectful and not make trivial comments(I have received one apology from another editor over this issue). There has been a number of technical problems with the article and also contributors making additions without any formal or official notification of a fatal accident regarding a competitor. If there is any criticism as an editor, it has been that perhaps I have not intervened in the problems with style or multi-contributions allowing articles to become untidy or unreadable. This is correct in regard to the article in respect to the Windy Corner and the Verandah. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does state that their are other procedures available to improve an article before moving to nominate an article for the deletion. Perhaps this procedure should have been followed rather than keep nominating articles for deletion. agljones (talk)11:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rocknrollmancer: Your argument to dismiss it having failed previously, would you now care to address the issue of notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable per the WP:GNG because it is documented in detail in sources such as 100 Years of the Isle of Man TT and The World Sports Record Atlas. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue of notability. There is no issue of original research (OR). The corner can be found listed on Sheet 95 of the Ordnance Survey Landranger Series of 1:50,000 scale map for the Isle of Man (primary sources are acceptable by Wikipedia). I do not control every "IoM article" and therefore I have made no attempt to improve this article. The article Snaefell Mountain Course already has two references to the corner and it is not a case of merging what is considered "non-trivial" information but expanding already existing information in a separate article. agljones (talk)21:50, 8 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) Mr. Guye (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost Corner[edit]

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

Non-notable road junction. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course. Rcsprinter¹²³ (jaw) @ 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at the deletion discussions pages and talk pages for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)16:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:37, 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 no consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Design and Research[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable company. Most sources are to the company’s own website or to mere news articles. The closest claim to notability having once been apparently listed (circa 2009, it seems) on Forbes’ “Most Promising Companies” list ([2]). It’s not there now, so I can’t confirm. A search on Forbes does not turn up any articles about the company; 15 where it’s mentioned, though.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Short (executive). TJRC (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "mere news articles?" I'm pretty sure news coverage (and books) are all we use to establish notability anyways. A dead Forbes link is no reason to delete, as we can assume it was added by a Wikipedian in good faith; if needed, a thorough Wikipedian could go to a library to confirm. (also, Forbes seems to like covering the company in other contexts). Overall, plenty of coverage, frequent mentions in the press to EEDAR as an expert source of info, and their studies get plenty of coverage in the mainstream press (and more here). Page needs to be brutally worked into shape, though, the subheadings are appalling. Earflaps (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I admit "mere news articles" was a little terse and opaque; thanks for calling me out on that. I now realize I was just coming down with the flu (just clawing my way back today), and claim that for an excuse for my imprecision.

What I meant by that phrase is that there are news articles that refer to the company, and maybe get a quote, but none of those articles are about the company. The indication is more that they're a steady supplier of studies, and of quotes to reporters, but not an indication that the company itself is notable. The articles you cite are each examples of that.

To sum up, my observation is that the only material I can find that is actually about the company is (1) the company's own web site and (2) this Wikipedia article. In other words, it does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." TJRC (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, poor thing, hope you're feeling better! I'm sure I was much more terse than you, I was just a bit confused by your wording. I def see your general argument, as this isn't the most famous company in the world - I think I'd still stick with weak keep, partly because of the dead forbes link and overall coverage, but then I'm prone to inclusionism (and a big fan of the "lots of minor coverage can be added up into something significant" clause in GNG, which I know if very up to interpretation). Earflaps (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Senegal[edit]

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

There are no sources or references for this article, and the files used are from other countries. Also, all African countries use the triangle shape for warning signs and not the yellow diamond. I also believe that the creator of this article is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - All incorrect signs (I'll admit I don't have a clue on signs in different cuntries but I trust the nom's correct :) ) –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 15:15, 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. I opted not to relist this given the obvious WP:CRYSTAL nature of the content. The previous AFD was a NAC that should have ended in a soft delete, which is what I'm going for here. No prejudice against recreation when and if the telenovela is actually released. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amores de barrio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think that this article should be created, where they have promotional soap opera or at least a release date is confirmed. McVeigh Talk ™ 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Mauritius relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, another non notable combination, based on 2 sources, one of which is a dead link. The 7 person Bangladesh delegation actually came for the Indian Ocean Rim Association meeting. The source even states bilateral talks on the sideline. I look forward to the rather lame keep reason of "Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world" LibStar (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bangladesh has not had relations wit-oh I'm sure you know the drill by now. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should be kept according to general notability guidelines. There were official visits by Mauritian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to Bangladesh and by Bangladeshi Foreign Minister to Mauritius. There is also a good number of Bangladeshis living in Mauritius. Economic and educational cooperation also exists. Nomian (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:VAGUEWAVE, simply pointing to a policy with zero explanation carries no weight. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again we see systematic bias, assuming that 3rd world/Global South states have no diplomatic agency. As shown by article, Bangladeshi migrants constitute a sizeable part of Mauritius population. Diplomatic links since 1972. --Soman (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article. Mauritus has a South Asian majority, which makes it natural to have relations with Bangladesh.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the South Asians that make the majority originate from India not Bangladesh. In fact I'm pretty sure they don't speak Bengali. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why would France have relations with the Pacific island of New Zealand? These relations have a history. Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, the first prime minister of Mauritus, was a close friend of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. This is according to the Mauritun Prime Minister.1 Mauritus is also an offshore financial centre. Interestingly, it signed a double taxation avoidance agreement with Bangladesh in 2009. 2--Rainmaker23 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm yet to hear the ludicrous argument "Bangladesh is one of the most populous nations on earth therefore any country it has relations with guarantees a Wikipedia article" LibStar (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Padode[edit]

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

Recently recreated page about a non-notable individual with no specific claim to fame. No significant coverage in Google, Questia, ProQuest, or LexisNexis searches. No worthwhile redirect targets. czar ⨹ 14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Subject is lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, thus fails -WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only decent source, I am able to find is -this. All others are passing/short mentions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A promotional article. Athachil (talk) 08:32, 4 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Katrakis[edit]

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

This woman was born in 1980. Her maternal grandfather – last king of Georgia and Armenia (died in 1819, cildless). Granmother of her grandfather was died in 1626. Mistification? Uncle Fred 13:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PUFF with no acceptable WP:RS. Agricola44 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:ARTIST and no other source of notabilty is evident, even setting aside the dubious genealogy-cruft. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i reseaved this information from Christina Katrakis by herself and updated becouse old version is to old. What i need to delete to leave most of information about her that now on her page? sorry for bad english MariSoltus (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This story [3] a PBS documentary [4], Memphis art tv Documentary [5] do a lot to establish notability, the claim to the international award meets WP:ANYBIO. Though I have not been able verify the award through any other sources except that under the subject's control, and was unable to access the homepage [6] of the award to confirm. This article is need a complete overhaul, but that is not a reason to delete. A Google searched bring up numerous hits on the subject including the points I offered above. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the first one helps much, as the Memphis Flyer is a local "alternative" newspaper. Ditto with the "Memphis Art TV" piece. The PBS documentary may be a different matter. All I have been able to find so far is several versions of the same presentation on youtube, all uploaded by various accounts that clearly belong to Katrakis and which are all labeled as "PBS documentary". Can anyone furnish verification that this was, in fact, something that appeared in a syndicated PBS broadcast (and not just on a local Memphis PBS station)? Agricola44 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

THIS ARTICLE may be overhauled, but that doesn't mean that it should be deleted. WIKIPEDIA desn't seem to undertand any more its prime importance as a source for information. CK is an important curator and recently curated the double show Ultra Violet and Igor Kalinauskas at RAR Gallery and Eichblatt Gallery in Berlin and made a film with the last interview of Ultra Violet. Everybody should let arrogance lie. Be objective... Dr. Gerhard Charles Rump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4766:80CC:8DFE:E015:A0FF:AD45 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am puzzled that this article does not mention that she is the founder of International Academy of Arts, which would appear to be the most notable thing about her. Yet oddly, searching on the academy yields only the academy's own web site, and although that site claims that courses in many areas have been taught by a whole list of famous names (all with links to their IMDB pages), and special guest teachers (including Al Pacino!), the faculty and membership and other pages are still "under construction". I'm afraid that there is just something unbelievable here. I searched for her on Google and in the EBSCO arts databases and got nothing. Most of the information here is from her own web site or Facebook page, or from minor publications, none of which confer notability. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Katrakis is an International Art Curator of "Ultra Violet Light" Project (Joined art project of Igor Kalinauskas and Isabelle Collin Dufresne) - BBC News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sana197 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arhive from Freedom to Create - Christina Katrakis - http://archive.today/62GCm “Freedom to Create – The Zone” – prize winner of Freedom to Create UN cultural prize, the series of paintings The Zone won the UN Freedom to Create prize and are on the world tour (Egypt, New York, Paris, Bosnia, China etc), 2011

The position of the ambassador of the good will in the field of culture for the UN. MariSoltus (talk) 21:48, 7 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Belarus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not sure why someone has decided to make another sprawling series of ambassador articles, this time for non resident ambassadors who in some instances are located thousands of km away. Also nominating,

Related AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Sri Lanka. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC) LibStar (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notwithstanding the instructions, group AfDs are not allowed here I just learned. Legacypac (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where did you learn that? I've participated in group AfDs where an admin has deleted all as per consensus. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Group deletions are permitted if done in the correct way(which this seems to be). Please see WP:BUNDLE. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except...well nothing. Delete all because of reasons I may have said way too many times. Not enough information and I am not gonna create all of those red links. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I would normally suggest simply redirecting them to their respective Country–Iceland relations articles, but these are all redirects too. Question: would this guy be considered notable? Like, his article is just a sentence... Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom; all fail WP:GNG. Shanata (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Max Kolonko. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is[edit]

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

Aggrandizement; only sources are primary, and many don't support the accompanying passages. Article's primary author(s) have tried on numerous occasions to argue that Kolonko has made a "bullet proof case" proving who killed JFK. S/t/he/y even went to the trouble of creating pretty graphs that include no verification data. Article's issues include WP:N, WP:V, WP:SYNTH, etc. Potentially qualifies for speedy under C7, but I figured a discussion might be in order. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Described program is quite a significant impact on the views of the public and the reception of television stations in Poland (the criticism of the establishment in Polish media). It is the most popular current affairs program on YouTube in Poland. The reason for the removal of this article may not be contradictory views of readers with the views of Mr. Kolonko. Leave. --Kszapsza (user talk) 12:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be factual; however, the article doesn't make its case. As it stands, it is a PR piece and nothing more, and fails all encyclopedic standards for inclusion. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean this article to be an advert anyway. Maybe it needs some more references, but it can be repaired easily in nearest future. Sentences like "MaxTV has influenced political and social discourse in Poland." etc. aren't added to promote Kolonko's channel, but they just tell facts and statistics of the channel. On the other hand – those graphs are used as data source and they testify to the popularity of channel. Because of such popularity topic is suitable to Wikipedia. I think it has encyclopedic (Wikipedia) style anyway. Leave.
Please don't delete article without another person vote or consideration of the matter of deletion --Kszapsza (user talk) 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of news media-related deletion discussions. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of politics-related deletion discussions. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Max Kolonko. Seems like a clear choice to me. There are a whole lot of sources about this guy, mostly in Polish, so there's no question he is notable. The question is the extent to which MaxTV is notable beyond Kolonko himself, and I don't think that's the case, based on what I'm seeing. Nonetheless, his work does appear influential/notable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me; the issue would be removing everything without a verifiable source, including the pretty graphics. Doesn't leave much. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Rhodo (w/o the gaudy charts and graphs please :)) -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Castles (film)[edit]

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

The latest attempt to use Wikipedia to promote Sand Castles. Previously deleted from Sand Castles: A Story of Family and Tragedy (afd). This film has been released and been shown at some film festivals but it's still not notable. There is a lack of reviews from reliable sources (eg). None of the festivals it's shown at are major. None of the awards it's been nominated for or won are major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did manage to find some local coverage and some mention of the awards and if it was just that then I'd probably be a little more likely to vote "delete", but I did manage to find one sole review for the film. I found one more at Film Pulse, but I'm not sure if that'd be a reliable source or not. They do have an editorial staff and the review is written by a staff member so I'm leaning towards it being usable, but I'm not certain enough so I've placed it in the EL section. However with the one lone review and the coverage so far I think that there's enough here for a weak keep overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that one linked from imdb but dismissed it based in part on [7]. A look at WP:RSN came up empty. Todd Willcox shows no sign of being a professional film critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep No more a "promotion" than any other sourced neutral article on Wikipedia. While in 2013, it was TOO SOON for this article, I stated then that it might meet notability standards after it was released to festivals, and am happy that it's time has finally come. WP:NF is finally met.[8][9][10][11][12] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No more a "promotion"". Not true. This is a repost from "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures which owns Sand Castles" [13] using another sockpuppet (SPI). Part of their promotional campaign [14] " That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now." Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. Delete Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On your sources. 1. MAF is not an independent reliable source. They are a organization promoting regionally made films. 2. another local puff piece from the creators home town. 3. assuming it's another local puff piece from the creators home town. link goes to current issue were I see no mention of Sand Castles. Did you mean another issue? (Sample feature article "Preschool teacher enters the world of her students" about "Your neighbor" who works at a local preschool.) 4. ??Really?? A link to a google search. I thought better of you. For me it comes up with imdb led in by "Your search - "Sand Castles, Jordon Hodges" - did not match any news results.". You really included that???? 5. Another google search. Have you been hijacked? "Your search - "Sand Castles, Clenét Verdi-Rose" - did not match any news results." followed by a facebook link. Seriously what's up?. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; another indy that has so far failed to attract a distribution partner for wide release (and while it may in the future, for now it's WP:Too soon). With the exception of a small local paper excited about the filming around town, there's nothing aside from film site tout material. Pax 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Pax 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like mentioned above, I managed to find quite of bit of articles and talk about the film and Sand Castles (film) has been edited with more notable and efficient sources since AfD started and WP:NF is met. Also, since this discussion began, the film was announced alongside other notable films to be showcased in February at the 21st Sedona International Film Festival [15][16]. Though a film's trailer popularity doesn't say if a film is notable or not, I think it is worth mentioning that the film's trailer was recently released and has tens of thousands of views already on one of many channels.[17] Johnnylego88 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC) — Johnnylego88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (SPI).duffbeerforme (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:11, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

Fails basic wikipedia policies WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOTNEWS, and others. List consists of some insignificant organizations and are not registered as parties. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the article on Donetsk Republic claims it won 68 seats in the Donbass general elections, 2014, and that [[: Aleksandr Zakharchenko]] its candidate for President, was elected. Both facts have a citation Wouldn't that make it a genuine political party? The article about Communist Party of the Donetsk People's Republic and New Russia Party have references calling them parties. If news sources call something a party, that's justification for an article, and for calling them a party. I agree the refs should be included here. If the news sources are ambiguous , the title can be changed to "List of political organizations ..." which might be a way to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, there were news in that regard. Could those news be qualified as reliable? Do we want Wikipedia to end up in a middle of political smear campaign? Some of those "parties" as it states in their articles about them were merged and existed for only couple of days, others do are not even registered as political parties and their credibility in question. If Donetsk Republic has a history of existence in Ukraine, other organizations were created during a conflict and their creation could be considered as part of information propaganda as hoax. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best step would probably be to first challenge the individual articles on the parties. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this nomination bizarre as the articles linked to in the list are well sourced. The groups clearly exist and are covered by reliable sources. Is the nominator's real objection perhaps that he considers the organizations to be illegitimate? If so, that's not a valid rationale for deleting them or this list of them. Is registration really required for political parties in the DPR? If so, the solution is not to delete the article but rather to add all registered parties to the list. We'd end up with a wonderfully complete list, and any parties which are notable but unregistered could be specially marked. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It really does not make any sense to create plain list of four parties, only two of which deserve very brief wikipedia pages. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because I'm not sure this requires a whole list for only two parties or three articles, and there really isn't any other content, here. Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic and Category:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic are probably enough. I don't know of any other parties in this group, though I assume Ukrainian parties still exist in the area. The links to terrorism and other controversy (such as being uregistered/banned in Ukraine) may actually add to notability, though these political divisions are unrecognized internationally. —PC-XT+ 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) —PC-XT+ 03:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This would be best handled through inclusion of "Parties" and links to the various parties in a footer. I agree that a list of four parties with no significant historical parties missed, would seem to be insufficient to sustain a freestanding page. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No indication of significance, or indication of their actual existence. RGloucester — ☎ 02:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently the individual parties do exist, aso a list is justified. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:10, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need list articles that only contain only four things. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus has emerged for a particular action. Discussion regarding the article, a potential merge, etc. can continue on its talk page if desired. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Regional Party[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An obscure political party which clearly fails WP:GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, if we can verify, at least with an independent source, that ARS is a political party, this article is not eligible for deletion because it could be merged and redirected to List of political parties in Croatia. It is included in what looks like a list of political parties in volume 37 of the Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia, Zavod, 2005. James500 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No doubt the party existed and had local representation (see e.g. this (in Croatian)), but not much more in terms of WP:GNG, so a redirect to List of political parties in Croatia would be in order. GregorB (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it has local representation it's notable. We normally tend to be very inclusive for political parties to avoid the possibility of bias. and especially to avoid Cultural bias in areas where we have few accessible sources . DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GregorB, until there are enough sources. SamuelDay1 (talk) 14:10, 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 no consensus. Closing as no consensus after over 1 month of discussion and minimal participation. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor Xhemali[edit]

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

Insufficient assertion of notability in the article. I did a Google search, but didn't pop up any usable material. However, I'm very willing to consider this might be a case of all-references-are-offline, given his nationality and death date. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does not say much, but what it says is true. There are less known Albanian people who have wiki articles. I don't see any reason to delete it. The article needs a lot of improvement though^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Mondiad (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG BlueSalix (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources noted above. Some sources appear to exist (through snippets) in a GBooks search. The article about him in Albanian Wikipedia (which I read via Google Translate) makes energetic, albeit unsourced, assertions of his significance. With due concern for avoiding systemic geographical bias, I lean toward keeping this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:16, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanosvamhira[edit]

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

This might be a last name, but is non-notable. Otherwise, the article is not very clear about what the term might be. I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage (fails WP:GNG). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced; delete per above. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Although the article names sources, the content of the article is largely incomprehensible. It gives no real context (what is an "afrocentric name"?) and doesn't explain context related hints given (when, where, or what was the "Myrus dynasty"?). One purportedly online source seems to have been already dead when the article was created. Two of the three sources have titles that don't make it clear how they can be authoritative on the subject of african names. Theoretically, the subject might be notable as a surname, but the current non-article makes it impossible to verify that. The strange spelling KąñõšvãmĥĪįŕa used in the text and the fact that the creator hasn't returned since could just as well point to a hoax, though. --Latebird (talk) 10:13, 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 redirect to 3D Realms#As Apogee Software. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hocus Pocus (video game)[edit]

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

Deprodded with "sources available, can be purchased still", but no proof of sources was given and being available for purchase is not an indicator of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Needs some help from WP:VG to clean up, but seems notable. Game is currently sold on GOG [18]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Gaming4JC (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources? How does it "seem" notable? Being sold is not notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing against WP:VG/RS I see your point. There are a few sources [19][20][21][22] and an appearance in an old magazine [23]. But only IGN would be notable and it is more or less an IGN stub. - Gaming4JC (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 3D Realms. Best known as an Apogee (3D Realms) game unless someone digs up some offline sources. It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search, and there's nothing sourced to merge to its parent. It'll only be worth a mention if we can find more coverage, but it remains a good search term. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the dePRODer, my research at the time indicated at least the need for keeping as a Redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Fram[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to establish notability. I also performed I Google search, and discovered nothing of significance (just a few passing mentions). --Biblioworm 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Short on depth of coverage, but seems quite prominent in his field, and there's no shortage of sources that could be used in the article, e.g. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. --Michig (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (warn) @ 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article contains multiple sources that discuss subject's contribution to major cultural projects and academic institutions. Subject is also cited as "notable alumni" in separate Wikipedia article.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.7.113 (talk • contribs)

^ ""Memorial High School (Hedwig Village, Texas)"". Wikipedia.

Delete -- coverage in reliable sources is incidental, so the article fails WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to have been copied from this link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't (yet) attain notability. I found nothing beyond mentions in the articles listed. I'm afraid that being a notable alum from a high school doesn't quite reach WP standards. The potential copyright violation from the Yale page (which has a copyright notice of 2015 and says "All rights reserved") could make this a speedy. LaMona (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all copyvio material, per policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Evolution[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The references are a mix of "we award you this award", and ones pertaining to DeusM (itself considered not notable enough, although then sneakily recreated). It's a random defunct Website. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage of a launch doesn't make the topic instantly notable. Shii (tock) 03:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is lame, but I can't imagine how a 'zine with 22 "blue names" associated with it could not be notable. Pax 23:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the article are all blogs, press releases, announcements, no actual references and when I did a search (making sure to include UBN since "internet evolution" gets a lot of unrelated hits) all I found were those same or similar refs. Its just a defunct web site that never got off the ground. Not notable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted above, all this coverage is just press release/blog stuff. The New York Times thing was simply a NYT blogger that linked to the website. There's no significant coverage here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:30, 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. 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]

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 16 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:11, 31 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 keep. Reasonable arguments have been made for the retention of this article, including the presentation of several reliable sources. While there is not a large consensus, this has been relisted 3 times without any substantial arguments for this article to be deleted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Tahitian Waters[edit]

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

Kind of an odd one; I can't tell if this is a bona fide classic, or an obscure title without any notability. References are pretty rare, and even among commercial sites I can't figure out if it's a memoir or novel. Mikeblas (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zane_Grey#Works, but leave the history behind. I found some mentions in books that give off the impression that there may be other sources out there but I can't really find anything to really show notability as a whole. The two book sources I've found are good, but they aren't enough in and of itself to show notability. The claim about the Old Man and the Sea isn't really backed up by anyone other than Grey's son (from what I can find), otherwise that would itself show notability. I figure that the lack of sources on the net might be attributed to the publishing time periods (1930s, 1990s) being before the advent of the Internet, so leaving the history could help in case any coverage could be found to show notability for an article. I do think that some of the claims in the article (the claim of being the first to catch such a monster sized fish) should be mentioned somewhere in the main article, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the run-of-the-mill cash-cow westerns he cranked out (and Hollywood snapped up), this one is offbeat and unique. While not as well-known as the westerns, sport-fisherman are well aware of it, and even beat-up first-editions copies go for several hundred dollars at auction despite not being particularly rare. Pax 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Auction price is not a measure of notability for books at Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are plenty of books (see GoogleBooks) that reference this book, some in passing, some in slightly more detail. There's no significant analysis of the text that I can find. I'd not be opposed to a redirect but this would seem to have a niche fan base and nobody is trying to promote it so I can't really see the harm in having a proper record of it here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources I found about the subject:
1. Milazzo, Lee (2000-03-19). "Books In Brief". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30.
  The article notes:
  Tales of Tahitian Waters By Zane Grey (Derrydale Press, $19.95) Some critics have suggested that Zane Grey's tales of Tahiti provided Ernest Hemingway with the inspiration for The Old Man and the Sea. Maybe so, maybe not, but readers can now judge for themselves, thanks to the publication of this attractive new edition of Mr. Grey's quests for the Giant Tahitian Striped Marlin (he captured a 464-pound marlin after 83 days of trolling and eventually landed the first thousand-pound blue marlin). The text is illustrated with more than 30 photographs of fishing matters and native life taken by the author.
2. Chan, Gabrielle (2001-07-03). "Round-up of cultural treasures". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30.
  The article notes:
  When he became rich and famous, he was able to pursue his passion. Zane Grey was considered the greatest sports fisherman of his time. A true story he wrote about going 84 days without a strike in the waters of Tahiti, "Tales of Tahitian Waters," provided the inspiration for Ernest Hemingway's famous "Old Man and the Sea."
3. Elliott, Keith (2006-10-01). "Many riders of Grey the grumpy sage - Sports Week Fishing Lines". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30.
  The article notes:
  It’s a darn shame he was such a vain, pompous, unlikeable man, because he wrote some of the great fishing books. Works such as Tales of Swordfish and Tuna, Tales of Tahitian Waters and Tales of Fishing Virgin Seas are, even today, among the finest works on big-game fishing.
4. Elliott, Keith (1993-07-25). "Fishing Lines: Reeling in the Grey legend". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30.
  The article notes:
  Grey's adventures resulted in some of the greatest books on big-game fishing: Tales of Fishing Virgin Seas; Tales of Tahitian Waters; Tales of Swordfish and Tuna, but once again, things went wrong. He took a British ex-army captain, Laurie Mitchell, to New Zealand as his companion but he never forgave Mitchell for capturing a 976lb black marlin, then the largest fish ever taken on rod and line. Their relationship ended in a legal battle, which forced Grey to sell his beloved boat, Fisherman II, at a huge loss.
  ...
  Ironically, his fishing books are now hugely sought after, and cost upwards of pounds 100. And on Wednesday a big-game reel named after him is expected to make between pounds 1,500 and pounds 2,500 at Sotheby's in Billingshurst, Sussex. For Grey, this would have been the respect he sought but never found during his life.
The book is reputed by several sources to be the inspiration for The Old Man and the Sea. The book was published in 1937. It is highly likely that a book considered to be "among the finest works on big-game fishing" and "are now hugely sought after" (from Keith Elliott of The Independent) has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The book probably also passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion 5:
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.
Cunard (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source about The Old Man and the Sea:
On the eighty-fourth day he caught, with rod and reel, a giant Tahitian marlin that weighed 1,040 founds. Although Grey tried desperately to get the creature ashore, the fish was ravaged by shark. Some Grey fans today credit Grey's experience with inspiring Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. See Zane Grey, Tales of Tahitian Waters (1931), and The Zane Grey Collector, 3:1:12–13.
—Jackson, Carlton (1989). Zane Grey. Twayne Publishers. p. 157. ISBN 0805703381. Retrieved 2015-01-30.
Cunard (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:10, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per my previous nomination which had no participants. fails WP:GNG. waste treatment facilities are rarely notable, the references merely confirm what the facility can do technically. The claim this was inspiration for similar facilities in Manchester is not actually stated in the sources provided. There is also no corresponding article in German. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To the nominator, do you have access to the two sources that supported the Manchester claim? The links no longer work. I would assume good faith on the part of the original editor, that the sources said what they said, unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. --do ncr am 04:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This 2013 source, provides support on the importance of the facility --- it gives eco-tours even --- and provides support that it was the basis for U.K. designs including Manchester (with its source being not Wikipedia but rather this 2009 Manchester coverage (subscription required, I don't have access). Other hits in the search above also include info. --do ncr am 04:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references for the "was the inspiration..." statement are both dead links. If we removed this un-verifiable information, the facility would be truly non-notable. Piboy51 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Piboy51's comment: Umm, for one thing, a deadlink is a once-online-but-now-offline source, which is fine, still. Second, there's ONLINE support for the information. The [2013 source I provided above (search on "Manchester", gets to p.19) states: "The system design at Lubeck has been the inspiration for three facilities planned for construction by Viridor Laing, a UK waste management and infrastructure investor consortium, as part of the Greater Manchester Waste PFI project." That's one online source, in addition to the (deadlink) sources in the Wikipedia article. And the 2013 source gives footnote indicating that [this 2009 Manchester coverage provides support, which is another source. And there probably are other off-line reliable sources. So Piboy51 rationale to delete appears invalid. I voted "Keep" above. --do ncr am 01:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see evidence of notability in the sources. Also, I don't see any evidence of an article on this facility on the German wikipedia. Presumably it is not called the "Lubeck Waste Treatment Facility" there. It is likely called the Luebeck Mechanisch-biologische Abfallbehandlungsanlage, and its one of many such plants.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But the Lubeck facility is a prominent example of its type (Mechanical Biological Treatment), for whatever reason it emerged as the model. I don't know if its type is common in Germany, I see no indication of that. But it is the one that was model for the Manchester plants. And here's an additional example: it is a model for the European Union's EU LIFE+ 2009 Program, a greenhouse gas-reduction program "thaat will enable Waste Management Authorities and other stakeholders to substantially reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions resulting from their waste management (WM) activities" program goals stated in an initiative for improving waste management for country of Turkey. Among the list of case studies for (what i assume to be best practices in) each type of WM, the Lubeck facility is the case study for "Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) with wet AD". Here is the case study on Lubeck MBT, with description and facts and statistics (some to be added to the wikipedia article).

Thanks Milowent, searching on Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL actually yields some hits. For example, this webpage with facts about the facility, from its operator:

Google-translated-to-English version.

Try also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Searching on Lubeck MBT brings up this documentation of study visit by Suffolk and Northamptonshire officials to Lubeck and other German WM plants: "Thirteen councillors and officers from Suffolk undertook visits to four German waste processing plants on the 1st and 2nd March 2006. These visits were organised by Enviros on behalf of the Defra Waste Implementation Programme. A party from Northamptonshire also accompanied the Suffolk people." Notes on Lubeck included.

With additional usage as model in EU-funded program, I think it's notable (already voted Keep above). --do ncr am 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - This is a standard type of facility with equal or similar installations all over Germany. If a delegation from the UK visited this place, then this probably didn't happen because there is anything special with the local facility, but rather because the tho cities were already involved in some kind of "diplomatic relationship" before that. --Latebird (talk) 10:47, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata++[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

How did this pass review? The sources still do not provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the book coverage appears to be both significant and reliable, making the software notable. Pinging @Lor: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I don't see a book listed.
  - Then you obviously didn't look very closely. There are three listed in the article already. Many others can be found here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, you mean the passing mentions in the three books. That's does not meet significant coverage. I thought you meant that there was a book written on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - A "passing mention" is a sentence or two. If you think 7 pages (The Handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists) is a passing mention, then with all due respect you have no clue what "significant coverage" means. That probably the longest, but I would several others with more than a page of coverage from the above link. An avaerage length news article on a subject - which would always be considered "significant" - would be less than half a book page. Clearly 1-2 pages of book coverage in 5+ distinct sources, and 7 pages in another, is way sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Note: ThaddeusB acknowledges further below (search on "my bad") that the 7 page reference is unrelated. --do ncr am 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per accepting the article, the sources assert the notability and per ThaddeusB the book coverage is more than enough to let it pass. If not Keep though, i would suggest Move back to Draft namespace. Lor^Talk 01:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Lor. You didn't give a reason as to why you accepted the article and it's still full of bad refs. You never answered how you read all of the supplied references in only 130 seconds, a message I left on your talk page. And if it fails, it should not be moved back to draft because editors like you continue to move it to main space without actually checking the refs! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, assuming i have not done the most basic thing of checking the references in an article does not really make you case, i did read the references and deemed them good enough for Wikipedia (Reading them does not necessarily mean reading the content in them). Further more, you have not stated why they are bad references. Lor^Talk 06:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the point, Lor. It looks to me like all you did was read that there were references, not click through to the reference links to see what was there. Even though there were two notes about previous AfDs and the edit history showing serious problems. Furthermore, you didn't read my original nomination: they do not provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To clarify that, most do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Some are clearly not independent of the subject. I don't see any that meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [I have been asked to comment because I have been involved with the WP:AFC process and I suspect I commented on at least one of the prior AFD discussions, though I have not checked] I have read the article and the references. Some references are passing mentions. If the sources were simply a couple of passing mentions my view is that this would disqualify the article, but there are sufficient of those to add up to a couple of half decent references. I'd like to see fewer case studies and more media coverage. There are useful references, too. Those qualify it for a place here.

Having considered this as a whole article with all the references, rather than by disqualifying every references that is not, of itself, a large tract of significant coverage, my view is that the article is borderline, but is just on the right side of the border. It requires improvement in referencing, certainly, but I view there as being just sufficient to merit keeping the article.

It seems to me that the passage of time will allow more and better references to appear. Searching for them and adding them to the article is the area for the community to concentrate on, surely? Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep checking several references shows enough coverage, and independence. So this now easily passes WP:GNG. Last AFD I said the article was not ready, but it is good enough now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Taking a look at the sources in turn (mostly for my benefit):

An (anonymous?) MS thesis, subject mentioned in two sentences and a table. (Sergey Uspenskiy, I assume we'll be crediting your work properly soon.)
Flint 2009. I looked at the paywalled version of the chapter. Three sentences and four instances in tables. The use of Cantata++ is incidental to the subject of the paper.
Wieczorek 2001. Two full paragraphs describing an earlier version of the software.
Mathur 2008. Single paragraph (modulo whatever gbooks isn't displaying).
Test 2012. Two sentences, does not describe the software.
QAsystems. Product documentation. Reliable for uncontroversial details but not useful for notability.
Automotive Electronics 2012. Three paragraph notice concerning software release.
Emenda case study. Anonymous and undated. This doesn't look independent but I'm not going to worry about tracking it down right now.
TVS case study. Anonymous and undated. Same concern about independence.
Second Emedna case study. Cantata mentioned 11 times over 2 pages. This really looks like the folks writing Cantata helped on the writing.
Meteonic. Not independent.

I very much agree with Fiddle that this is a borderline article, but for me it falls on the other side of the border. WP:NSOFT suggests software is notable if [t]he software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. The best WP:RS listed above describe this software as one choice among many. This is a high bar for software outside the consumer space where reviews are few and far between. However, without this additional material, we're left with articles that are based entirely on non-independent sources. I do want to thank the editors who have worked to improve the article. I have no issues with the writing, claims or length. But based on the sources provided, I'm still not convinced the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous other book sources available, including one with 7 pages on it - see link above. Of course a source writing in depth about a previous version is valid to establish notability, as notability is not temporary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: The Cantata described in Ross 1996 is a "graphical substitute for the Unix shell". The software described in the article is an Eclipse plugin. There may be a relationship, but based on what I have in front of me these are two different pieces of software that share a common name. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right about that specific source, so my bad there about not reading more carefully. However, there is still what I would call significant coverage in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security in addition to Wieczorek. Mathur is likely more than a paragraph as at least some text is clearly cut off from the GBooks preview. Those three should be sufficient for notability. Additionally, C/C++ Users Journal, Unix Test Tools and Benchmarks, and The C++ Report all look promising, but hard to say for certain from the brief GBooks preview. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB: I hope to be spending some time at the libraries of UOregon and UCB next week, so if you get me a list of sources you'd like me to track down I'll see what I can do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: Your assessment lines up with mine. Thanks for looking at the sources in such detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: It would be helpful to determine the length of coverage in [30], [31], and [32]. Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the problem with saying 'x' paragraphs in 'y' sources is that it ignores context. In this case, the software's claim to importance is in its widespread use in civil engineering. However, those claims are largely unsourced or have brief mentions. Sources need to verify things that make this software recognised enough by the wider world. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do we determine if something is (sufficiently) well known to warrant an article? I would say evidence of coverage by RS is much better evidence than a source saying something is well known. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question, and indeed one of the main sticking points for all complicated AfDs, is what qualifies as "significant coverage". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MoveI have been involved in past deletion discussions and would like to acknowledge the recent contributors to this article for the great improvement. But, I think that it should be moved back to the draft namespace. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @StudiesWorld: You said keep, which means keep the article in main space, but stated move it to draft space. Which is it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, haven't been on Wikipedia in a while. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - To StudiesWorld, now your "vote" shows as "Move", but that would imply you wish for the article to be renamed and moved to a different title in mainspace. I think your vote (and that of anyone else seeking to "userfy" or move to Draftspace the article), would be better termed "Delete": you want for it to be deleted from mainspace. Copies of any deleted article can be provided to userspace or to draftspace; that is routine and is not up for discussion in this AFD. I don't have a position about this article yet myself. --do ncr am 14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "move to draft" and "userify" are standard !votes, distinct from "delete".

@StudiesWorld: Normally, one would !vote move to draft if he/she felt the article had severe problems that could be fixed (and then the article returned to mainspace). Your comment makes it sound like you think the article should be permanently placed in draft, which isn't an option. What do you hope to accomplish by having it put it draft space? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editor ThaddeusB mentions a reference of "7 pages (The Handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists)", presumably an article in a handbook of that name, but I don't find that specifically named or linked in the current article or in this AFD discussion. Searching on "handbook" within the article gets no hits. Could a more specific reference be provided? --do ncr am 14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Here. It appears to be an unrelated language that happens to have the same name. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said above "my bad", that specific source (which is named in this AfD for the record) is about a different piece of software. The rest of the sources I named/linked above (some used in the article, some not) do constitute sufficient coverage to establish notability, however. Sources existing, not being used in the article, is what determines notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To User:ThaddeusB, I think you could make your case better. This AFD discussion is pretty confusing to read. I think it would help within an AFD discussion for you yourself to amend your original comment, if you later realize it is incorrect, by ~~strikeout~~(perhaps with parenthetical explanation). Here, you state/imply there's a listing of sources that you named/linked somewhere above, but I find no such list. I do see a couple unlinked sources named by you within your first "my bad" statement: quoting you: "However, there is still what I would call significant coverage in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security ..."), Also earlier you mention 3 books that were or are linked from the article, but don't identify which they are. And the article has been changed during this AFD. It's really hard to follow.
About the apparently-different software named Cantata covered in the 7 pages of the Handbook, the article should be revised somewhere near the top to mention that there was/is a different software product named Cantata that does something else (what?), but it is not the subject of this article. Probably with footnote to the 7 page treatment.
I'm not going to try to sort this out any further, in order to "vote". Bye. --do ncr am 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reading the article and having a look at the distinct! sources the article shows a good potential to be improved over time. There has been a lot of relevant and informative edits over the last two years which valorized the article. But, I also agree with you that the article still shows some (smaller) problems/inconsistencies of the references, which could be fixed over time. @ThaddeusB: By the way, did you get anything in the library ? SimonBauer7 (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were directing that question at me. I struck out at UOregon and UCBerkeley wasn't open this weekend. At this point, I expect we can close this as no consensus or keep, either one of which would be reasonable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete and salt. The sources are not sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everybody for reading the article and giving your opinion about it. First of all I agree with you that every article in the WIKI could be more improved at anytime, so also this one. But as you can see I (tried to) improve(d) it over a long period of time and also followed the instructions of several experienced wiki users/authors. I enlarged it enormously and found a lot of qualified references for supporting the content but never got a real helpful support from the opposing party. Furthermore I compared the article to some other software articles, which are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unit_testing_frameworks to get to know how other authors establish software articles. There are a lot of software-articles listed which even don't show more than three NON-objective sources, any good description or any further information about the use of the software. So, I am asking myself why nearly every other article "survives" in the wiki encyclopedia but not mine?! You can find a list of them here:

I am very disposed to get some more help for improving it over time. Looking forward to it, QARon (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CSDed two of the above, PRODded one other. List of unit testing frameworks is a total train wreck of a list. Yes, software articles are, I find, one of the biggest problem areas on Wikipedia and also one of the least consistent. There are just so many niches that fly under people's radars, often not even linked from any other page. Everyone once in a while someone stumbles upon one which leads to some related problematic pages, but in the end someone's always kind of irritated (understandably) because there are so many other articles with similar problems that aren't being deleted. That's the basis for this essay. Bringing them to people's attention as above is one way that happens. Otherwise they would just sit there and be terrible indefinitely, displaying some text copied from the company website and a list of features with no sources, for example. I digress. The present case is a toughie. Certainly not one like those listed above. There are sources here, but it's not a slam dunk by any means. I was leaning weak delete but I think I'm going to leave it at a comment in order to say that, although the refs aren't great, they're not too bad and I think it's very promising that there are people who show a vested interest in trying to improve it according to Wikipedia standards. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the landscape of sources here has been much different than the last time this was deleted. What led me to think it met the AfC 50/50 criteria some time back was the belief that the paragraph and diagram at [33], describing (or so I believed) the generic pattern of usage of the tool, rather than a single use case, and could be construed as our second source in addition to Wieczorek. Arguable in any case, but at least you have a link the the only source I haven't seen mentioned here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. After reading through the OTRS ticket I'm left thinking that the subject (or his representatives) wished to get rid of this article so they could write another one, which would supposedly not mention the subject's musical career. Assuming that the subject does not meet our notability guidelines (consensus for that seems the be the case below), the deletion is not a problem. However, I'm also going to salt the title to prevent re-creation, and I'd invite any interested editors to read through WP:PSCOI and use Articles for Creation if they wish to recreate. Obviously we never discard a subject's history solely for their convenience and this might be simply a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, but again, if the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines then the point is moot in any case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randevyn[edit]

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

The subject has requested that I start an AfD on their behalf. The reason given is: 'I don't want to be primarily known as a musician.' This in no way reflects my own thoughts or opinions. Please see OTRS ticket number 2015011810002041 for confirmation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not even sure there are sources out there to make subject pass WP:BIO. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a lot of content for an article without references. I note that the article has been mostly authored by a SPA with over 500 edits on that page. I also found at least 3 other SPAs, but there were many others who contributed who are generalists on WP. The subject's own web site returns a 404. If this article had a few good references then it would have to stand, regardless of the desires of the subject. But it doesn't. Too bad, it's a nicely done article, better that most that we see here at AfD. LaMona (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under A7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kundan yadav (earthan)[edit]

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

The person does not meet WP:BIO/WP:ARTIST/WP:ENT. Juggler2005 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails WP:BIO and previously deleted twice under A7 with different titles. Likely either an autobio or a COI creation. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -There are absolute zero refs. No real sign of significance. I think, I would A7 it (afd here is gonna kill community time and serve no purpose). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:47, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Willows (cricketer)[edit]

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

Delete. Hoax article; certainly no such person played for Middlesex CCC and a similar bogus entry has been inserted into the list of Middlesex players (and removed again) Jack | ^{talk page} 12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No references to prove WP:Nobility. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -G3-Yes, it is hoax. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And the hoax is still being perpetrated. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:54, 7 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Trinidad and Tobago relations[edit]

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

Before I tell my reason, I should add a few more:

I have been supporting deletion discussions on many of these Bangladeshi relations but these ones haven't yet been nominated. They have such little information and they can easily be merged into Foreign relations of Bangladesh. It seems to be a violation of the SPA policy as there really isn't anything going on between the countries at this point in time. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "can easily be merged", then why are you asking for deletion. Merge and redirect is a talk page issue. Having a third deletion discussion a few weeks after closing the previous discussion is disruptive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:18, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - This endless series of challenges to subpages of Foreign relations of Bangladesh is getting tiresome and disruptive. Wikipedia is not paper; Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world (population bigger than that of Russia). These subpages keep the already sprawling Foreign Relations page mentioned here from becoming unwieldy. It is a topic of academic interest and clearly encyclopedic, even if the individual subpages viewed in isolation might not at a glance seem to be. Carrite (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also Nigeria which has a bigger population than Bangladesh and there isn't many of these articles on that. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world" is a rather ridiculous reason for keeping, as it gives a free pass for say Bangladesh-Tuvalu relations or indeed any combination regardless of the state of relations, population is not a relevant criteria, if so you would argue small countries have little chance of bilateral relations . I do wonder if Carrite actually made a search for sources. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (and thanks for putting me in an edit conflict XD). I mean it makes as much sense as to have Bangladesh-Ottoman Empire relations. They should only be created if something REALLY huge happens with them, like India and Pakistan. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of peacekeepers is well documented for those African countries. Laos is part of the SE Asian region. Delete the rest. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Standard almanac entries. An almanac isn't useful unless it is complete. If I were to sort all the bilateral relations by relative importance, these would not be at the top of the list, but someone has to be at the bottom. I am not opposed to taking the smaller entries and merging them onto one page, and using the bilateral titles as redirects. But they should not be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is so generic. Did you actually read the articles in question. There is no inherent notability in bilaterals so they don't get an automatic article as standard almanac entries. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all all of these articles should be kept according to the general notability guidelines. There are already multiple references with significant coverage in all of these articles, please have a look at them. Nomian (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Each one passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, there isn't any real no deletion rationale in this AfD nomination, there is no policy that says that all stubs should be merged. And for what it's worth, almost all Wikipedia material could be merged somewhere else. As stated by Carrite, Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally. --Soman (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Bangladesh is one of the most popolous countries in the world, and does carry weight internationally" is so vague and does not give a free pass to any bilateral with Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close as Keep a multi-nom like this will never get consensus for deletion of specific articles, since most agree that plenty of these articles are fine. --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since they all pass general notability guidelines. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Farrow[edit]

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

This subject does not in general meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, or WP:GNG. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 12:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. There seem to be no secondary sources which directly address the subject; she is mentioned in passing in some sources as the sister of Mia Farrow, but no reliable sources speak as to the notability of the subject herself. Snow talk 12:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per reasons outlined by Govindaharihari. Note- there is also discussion to delete the article of a related subject Tisa Farrow on that article's talk page, for similar noteworthy concerns. Shark310 18:01, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute[edit]

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

Written as an essay by a wikipedia editor as a content fork from Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Its a rather one sided selection of quotations and a violation of wikipedia's policy of a WP:NPOV. There has been an extensive and rather toxic debate at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute on the inclusion of this sort of commentary, with the point being wikipedia requires a source to discuss it. A wikipedian cannot compile and edit a disparate selection of quotations, as this is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN. The author who created this, attempted to insert this content into Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and consensus was very much against him Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 20. W C M_email 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear content fork with an apparent violation of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV to boot, alas. The extant article it is a fork of appears to be policy compliant, and covers both major positions adequately. Collect (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Template to Merge Reading the archive I don't think consensus was very much against the author. I do not see it as clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN. I don't think it is written as an essay. I don't think it is a one sided selection. I do think it is a content fork but do not think a "merge vote" here alone would be appropriate, as this might well end up a controversial merge via the backdoor. We should keep and add merge templates MyTuppence (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for all the reasons I gave at the time of the discussion that WCM notes. I would suggest that the fact that the article is orphaned - despite major potential for inward links - implies that it was not intended to be found by editors who disagreed with it.

The whole thing is a mess of WP:OR and always will be. It is WP:OR because it combines multiple primary sources - statements of international governments - and uses them to draw conclusions (stated and implied) that cannot be reasonably supported based on the available sourcing. For example, look at the list, which side has more international support? Obviously Argentina. But no reliable secondary source will tell you this because in the real world it is not clear-cut fact that Argentina has more support. Moreover, there are several individual instances of states on the list whose position would be sharply disputed and could not easily be defended - because either the statements are contradictory or the reporting is contradictory. The user writing this article has come to one conclusion for each state listed. S/he might easily come up with the opposite conclusion in most cases here. Remember that, in this dispute, there are states that have appeared to switch sides twice is as many months.

What this means in turn is that the list is irretrievably WP:POV. Again, it always will be. Part of the point of WP:NOR is that, particularly in controversial areas, you cannot achieved neutrality because there are not the sources to allow you to determine what neutrality is. This article is highly biased toward Argentina. If somebody else wrote it (e.g. by taking the general international principle that silence is implicit support for the status quo) it might be highly biased toward Britain. Or, one might find that it is inconsistently biased, skewing things in favour of Argentina with one sentence and Britain in the next. But it will never be neutral - that is an impossibility because of the reliance on WP:OR.

Such a list is not something that has not been tried before. The article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute used to have a map of countries categorised with support for each side. It was removed for precisely the same reason as this should be deleted. Those reasons also mean that any attempt to merge will violate WP:NPOV. But they would also be biased for another reason - and that is that it would inevitably vastly overstate the importance of the international opinions in this particular dispute. Kahastok talk 13:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a real mess of a fork. I don't see why or how it could be saved. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collection of few opinions about a dispute. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all due dispatch, obvious WP:POVFORK. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve This article IS NOT WP:POVFORK since its theme is not the Dispute between the UK and Argentina that dates back 200 years (Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute), but only current international reactions. It is a WP:SPINOFF of former article. What it needs to avoid is classifications like "supporting the British position" or "supporting the Argentine position", since that's the part that could be seen as a leap of WP:OR. That's the way it's done in articles like International reactions to the Syrian Civil War, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, Positions on Jerusalem, International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–09), International reactions to the Bahraini uprising (2011–present), etc. There's a constant influx of uninvolved editors that arrive at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute to include a declaration of a country or organism about the dispute, only to get reverted (see e.g. [34][35][36][37]); as a plus, this article would solve that problem. Therefore, I'm reiterating the support I gave a while ago.[38] --Langus (t) 17:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: done. --Langus (t) 19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Per WP:SPINOFF, "[s]pinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies." This latter point is what has happened here. The text was rejected at existing articles because it breaks standard content policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, so the editor decided to create a fork instead. You've made the pro-Argentine POV slightly less obvious but have not removed it, nor removed the POV in many of the individual points. I wouldn't expect you to because it's asking the impossible - the thing cannot be made neutral because of the lack of sources. Which is why it should be deleted. Kahastok talk 21:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The thing cannot be made neutral because of the lack of sources" this is novel to me... could you elaborate? This situation doesn't seem to be covered by WP:NPOV, despite your insistence that this article goes against this core policy. It doesn't seem to be a WP:DEL-REASON either. --Langus (t) 01:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Wunderlich[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [39] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: There is discussion related to a batch of AFDs, I think all about model articles created by one editor, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Somewhat related, new AFDs (but these are for model articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on a group of these articles the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and ask for an immediate closure The nominator has put up no rationale for this AFD. The editor who created the Wunderlich article is not banned. Even if they were, WP:DENY is not a valid reason because this article saw significant edits by other editors....William 16:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

State level winning has been deemed not notable. What significant edits? Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, ~~All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article with more references. It now has a total of five references. With references and citations across several sources about more than one event(pageant titles in different years) this articles subject has achieved notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miss Indiana USA with no prejudice against building it into a proper article later. Subject might be notable, but I don't feel the current referencing proves it. That doesn't mean we can't have a paragraph about Wunderlich at a broader article. One paragraph would not give inappropriate eight at Miss Indiana USA, and that is all there is in this article at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 10:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Mitchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [40] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Her impressive recovery from a car accident is not notable enough for WP, nor is her planned career teaching elementary school. Legacypac (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as more that meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. ABC News is hardly anybody's "local paper" and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources for multiple events beyond the car accident. Article was created 3.5 years ago by User:TonyTheTiger who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human interest stories about a car accident (even nationally published ones) don't earn you a Wikipedia article. That requires sustained coverage in RS for something significant. And before you comment on the number of deletions I'm posting and calling it bad faith, prove I'm incorrect one by one. User:DGG says we can't batch these pageant articles 10 days into a long debate with 18 involved editors, so now we have to deal with them one by tedious one. It has been previously established that WP:NMODEL is the best fit for contestants - if not that then what? Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is because she won various beauty pageants, including Miss Alabama USA, not merely because she was in a car accident. - Dravecky (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as page creator) State Beauty pageant winners who have done other things that helpt them achieve GNG should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - she won exactly one state level contest. Based on that criteria every State fair blue ribbon winner earns a WP article. Its a single event. Fails BLP1E and its of local interest only. Legacypac (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your state fair ribbon comment is preposterous. The title of 'Miss Alabama' is something once a year to the winner of the state's major beauty pageant not some contest at a state fair....William 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. She is the winner of a major state beauty pageant. That makes her notable....William 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 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. Not seeing how a relist will help this, creator has been blocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International 2015[edit]

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

Seems to be an exact duplication of info from Manhunt_International_2014. future, non-notable event sourced only on the company website. Legacypac (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only editor is blocked for sockpuppetry while creating articles about pageants. The Banner talk 14:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyas[edit]

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

This is a very old, unsourced orphan article that doesn't make a lot of sense. Nominally about an element of Hindu philosophy, the only "reference" is a coincidental use from Shakespeare, where the word refers to a bird (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eyas). Googling the "types of nyas" listed just turns up Wikipedia mirrors. I think this is just nonsense, but bring it here in case this is recognizable as an English-language/transliteration issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Agreeing with nominator, the article doesn't either make sense to me. Anyway, it fails WP:GNG. I'm open to amend my !vote if someone is able to find "sources" and fix the article to make it reach the GNG standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In an attempt to find sources I also tried to google some of the types it gives, with no luck. I'm finding a few more hits for nyas yog and a few other similar terms but none are specifically what's being talked about here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. VandVictory (talk) 01:29, 5 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. Well I'm gonna close this as "per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes." seeing as the nom hasen't responded and plus sources have been found- If the nom disagrees I'll relist. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Davila[edit]

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

No one has been able to provide sources for anything in this article created by banned Socks [41]. Clearly fails WP:NMODEL if editors can't prove she exists. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her existence is easy to verify through findsources. That said, I don't see that she meets gng. A Spanish speaker might be better qualified to answer that question. Jacona (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: scrolling through the edits her name, birthdate, and height have all been changed without any inline cites. Who knows what is correct or incorrect here. Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there is any possible proposal of redirect, you can share one. Finding sources in English language is actually difficult for this subject. Noteswork (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like she is notable. Sources in Spanish: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] In English: [52] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:30, 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 merge to Bonamana#Promotion and reception. Arguments for this article's retention do not outwiegh those noting that the article is not up to standard. Furthermore, based on the below discussion, a merge is the best course of action here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Show 3[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NTOUR. The first three references may give the appearance of the coverage required by that guideline (which states that, basically, the GNG must be passed), but appearances are deceptive: they are nothing but repeats of the press release; they are not coverage or discussion. The rest is just setlists, calendars, and jive. (And look at the external links I removed--spam.) Drmies (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (jive) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (utter) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some contents with references were added after "Nomination for deletion" was marked. Please determine whether the page meet the criteria for content of the encyclopedia or not. - 830701like (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but the only additional thing I see is this--at best that's a review of sorts of one show, at worst it simply regurgitates a press release from the company. Note how the second paragraph starts: "According to a press release from SM Entertainment on Monday,..." Drmies (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTOUR, which requires actual discussion about the tour. The article is, as usual, a set list and list of dates, plus some of dubiously-notable claims of "first this, first that", such as first artist to perform three times in a specific arena - ? And? Every Korean tour these days claims to set records or be the first to do something, so those claims can't really go toward notability any more. It just means nothing to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyang-i (talk • contribs)

This tour was in 2009. This is about historical significance. It was a BIG DEAL at that time. I don't see how current tours can compare. and until this day in 2015 Super Junior is still the one with the biggest scale of world tour among all Korean artists.

Keep Notable tour. Well-referenced. "The Super Show 3 concert had set several new records such as the band becoming the first artists to hold a standing concert in China and the foreign artist to attract the largest audience.[7]" "series of shows at the Taipei Arena in Taiwan, performing in front of 30,000 people, making them the first foreign artist to hold three concerts at the arena.[5]" Wikipedia is missing out if you don't have an article on this tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.120.210 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another stubby tour article which is far from meeting WP:NTOUR. It should be deleted and retargeted to Bonamana#Promotion and reception. MaRAno ^FAN 09:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Junior or delete. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boppin'[edit]

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

Not notable, no sourcing found (reviews, articles, etc.). Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Two reviews in Computer Gaming World 1995. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator's page is up for deletion (Jennifer Diane Reitz). This could probably be redirected into her article and then we could consider whether or not the sources for the game and website (Happy Puppy), paired with the JDR sources would make her pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (gas) @ 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 18:40, 17 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) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. I think that individually there are good reasons to be worried that the articles for JDR and this game would fail notability guidelines, but I think that if we lump the pages together then we'd have about one good page that would pass. I'd actually prefer to have this all together under the name of their programming group Accursed Toys, but then the info about JDR just wouldn't really fit well in that article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At a glance, there aren't enough sources to justify a standalone article. (I don't remember why I originally thought the article was a good idea.) A redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz seems appropriate if that article survives AfD. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:02, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Jilmart[edit]

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

I do not think it as notably since there are so many local language colloquial terms. Wikipedia is not dictionary. It's is good to add these some of the line with Computer fraud Anton^Talk 06:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant coverage. APerson (talk!) 14:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant coverage is available.[url|https://www.google.co.uk/#q=computer+jilmart][url|https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AqRRNpSGwuLhCmHsit6ngwc4hJp4?fr=yfp-t-903-s&toggle=1&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=computer%20jilmart] Madunai (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madunai, would it be possible to link directly to the sources you're talking about? APerson (talk!) 02:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could probably be improved in a more encyclopedic style rather than a lexiconic manner itself. Sometimes it's inevitable that an encyclopedia supposed to be used as a dictionary pertaining to the context, especially when a dictionary is lagging the needs of the reader. It's also not possible to include an encyclopedia in a specified division of knowledge and that's why it's remarkably known as Encyclopedia. Galtikka (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything in this article, in its current form, that establishes it's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reason to keep this article as many nations have different words for computer fraud UMDP (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT. Start using Wiktionary please, that's what it's there for. The arguments for keeping have no basis in policy. --Michig (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Banana Pi. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Pro[edit]

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

non notable product per WP:PRODUCT Deunanknute (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Can't find anything other than press or press-like launch announcements, shopping links and trivial mentions. No reliable in-depth coverage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of single-board computers. WP:SPAM (maybe) and WP:NOTJARGON (certainty). Pax 02:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a real product that has only recently started shipping. It was reviewed at Hardware-libre on January 2, 2015. Product is listed for sale at DX.com, Alibaba.com and Aliexpress.com. (The link is not provided because the site is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. You can go there and search for Banana Pro.) Aliexpress states that there have been 64 orders. There are 8 reviews. The earliest is January 4, 2015. --Waynegoode (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the first review consists of getting it out of the box and looking at it, not using it; hardly a proper review. As for sales links they don't count towards notability – it takes nothing for something to be listed for sale at hundreds of sites.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any reliable secondary coverage of note. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Banana_Pi. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Banana Pi; it is an upgraded derivative of that platform -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:18, 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. Michig (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Film Critics Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted a mere three weeks ago, and all of the issues presented in that nomination remain. I personally think that, if deleted again, a temporary salting would be appropriate to prevent re-creation while the topic is still not notable. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 06:17, 31 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 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just "welcomed" this "new" editor and, as it had not yet been done, notified of this AFD discussion.[53] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my argument from the previous AfD, which remains the same: "Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. This organization is not covered in the Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, which tends to mention or cover regional award organizations. The two places I've found this organization mentioned are Indiewire and and HitFix, but they do not say anything more than reporting the nominees/winners, which I think falls under 'routine' at WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources that cover the organization more in depth, such as writing about its founder Kenneth R. Morefield and the organization's formation, would be ideal for keeping this article. I am happy to change my stance if these kinds of sources can be turned up, either now or in the future." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be useful to add 2012 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards, 2013 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards, and 2014 North Carolina Film Critics Association Awards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Erik and Sock. The Film Project is beleaguered by a seemingly inexhaustible supply of non-notable awards-mills whose presence clutters up film and actor/actress/director articles with heaping mounds of trivial awards and nominations. There are dozens of small, regional film-critic societies, most of whose members appear to be amateur bloggers and amateur reviewers for penny-shoppers and the like, with a bare handful of small-circulation papers thrown in. Having hundreds of such trivial awards / nominations acknowledged in some films' articles is highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This goes for the Central Ohio Film Critics Association and others as well, the only coverage of which is their inclusion in year-end awards lists. Such groups in and of themselves are non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant secondary coverage of this organization or its awards. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, with copy of article to Draftspace, tentatively, updated. North Carolina is not a tiny region. The $9.9m population of the state would put it 85th amongst countries in the world by population, ahead of Sweden and most other countries in the world, if it were a separate country. And the listed member critics might be a collection of the most prominent film critics in the state, i am not sure. For the organization, maybe it should focus on Tar Heel Awards, not be one more voice voting on the biggest movies anywhere. It would be relevant to describe whether/which world-class directors, actors, etc. come to their awards ceremonies, if any do. I agree that for it to merit a Wikipedia article, there needs to be independent sources, per wp:GNG, and so far there are none in the article. Maybe it is too early wp:TOOSOON? for this article to be in mainspace, if there is not yet coverage of it, in which case it could be moved to Draftspace (technically a "Delete" outcome here, but allowing for development). Also the article and the organization's website is not clear on what kind of entity it is. Is it commercial, is it a charitable non-profit, is it a mutual benefit nonprofit? --do ncr am 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One or more members of NCFCA are also members of Southeastern Film Critics Association, also not a good Wikipedia article, but an older (1992-founded) and broader scope organization. Why did NCFCA founders see it necessary to create another awards group? They should themselves say at their website, but do not as far as I can tell. Try also:

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

which is their one North Carolina-specific award category. If they just focused on North Carolina films and did a good job of it, I would expect there'd be no issue about there being one combined Wikipedia article about the organization and its awards given. It seems less valid as an organization, offhand, that it gives too-broad awards that I am guessing are probably not collected in person. --do ncr am 01:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel L. Vega[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No claim meeting notability guidelines. The closest would seem to be the "The International Art and Cultural Association Gold Medal", but that turns out to be from a local (Central Florida) group. Google hits are basically self-generated material. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comms) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (dialogue) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed all refs that did not mention subject, and there's not much left. Searching for him or his company does not bring up anything useful. Fails GNG big time. -- Sam ^Sing! 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and there is not enough coverage. Noteswork (talk) 16:25, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Da BackWudz[edit]

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

this article Da BackWudz has no references, no source for verification, there is no evidence of Notability. therefore the article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Samat lib (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll see what I can find. I'm fairly certain that their song "I Don't Like The Look Of It" got national rotation (it's how I heard of it), but of course I'll have to find sourcing for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage was out there, but you kind of had to finesse Google to really reach it. In any case, their first album received quite a few reviews and it also charted on Billboard 200, so that's enough to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tokyogirl79's improvements to the article show that the subject meets WP:BAND and the WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 11:10, 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. From the AFD nomination onward a couple of sources were added to the article, but they were either passing mentions, not-reliable or primary. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vantana Row[edit]

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

nothing close to notability here. fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Altho it isn't a reason for deletion, it is not clear whether the author is talking about members of the group, the group or other groups that they have performed with. The ONLY reliable sources currently on the article do not even mention the groups name John from Idegon (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Altho it isn't a reason for deletion, it is not clear whether the author is talking about members of the group, the group or other groups that they have performed with."

You are correct. As for your comment, I will clarify specific links of the referenced websites and clarify the subjects of each individual fact.

Creating the page has been an anticipatory act for the public's curiosity on the bio of what Volly Terry and Jamey Blaze's new band is doing and what it has achieved so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellastname (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guess I should add WP:CRYSTAL to my nomination then. John from Idegon (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- They have articles I just need to look more up to satisfy this petition. Thank you, John for the check. This article will be sufficiently informative after this trial period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellastname (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michaellastname: Please read WP:PGL, like the note at the top of the editmode of this page instructs, and also I'd suggest WP:AFDEQ,WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:AFDFORMAT. You seem to not understand what it takes for an article to be on Wikipedia. Also,please sign your comments here and on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). John from Idegon (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant, independent coverage so far; if any appears, then the article can be recreated afterward. (WP:TOOSOON). Neutrality^talk 05:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 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 redirect to Yaesu (brand). Daniel (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-901[edit]

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

A review as might be found in a specialist magazine, not indicating anything notable about this product. : Noyster (talk), 10:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yaesu (brand). I agree with Noyster's comments regarding the notability of the product. Currently the company's page has a long list of product models, so perhaps some introductory info could be inserted from this page as a brief description of the product. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Amateur radio has been notified about this debate. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that another Yaesu product is now up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaesu FT-290R. On the company's article, there is a long list of more than 100 products. 23 are bluelinks and the rest are redlinks. After looking at some of the other articles, it may be the case that all of them belong here at AFD. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 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 keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Diane Reitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. All sources are WP:PRIMARY or do not mention her. Her three webcomics are not notable, nor is the site. Last AFD was nine years ago and resulted in "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've fixed a few of the cites and she is mentioned in some academic texts and other works. ([54], [55]) I'll see what else I can find, but offhand I think that she'll probably squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that it'd probably be best to merge Happy Puppy into her article, though. It's such a brief article that it could easily be merged and redirected to the appropriate section. I'd advise this as opposed to vice-versa since JDR has received notice in the earlier mentioned academic texts for her other actions/works, so it'd make sense for her to have an article that incorporates info about Happy Puppy as opposed to an article about the site that had information about her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in spite of good efforts by Tokyogirl79. I looked at the main sources currently used in the article; while it appears Ms. Reitz is mentioned in several high quality independent sources, it is only in passing. I do not see high quality sources that treat her as the central focus, so (unless we have missed some significant works) she does not meet the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyt: What do you think about merging this together with Happy Puppy? I think that together they could make for a decent article that passes notability guidelines as a whole. She created the website with her two domestic partners but she's always been the face/name of the company as a whole for the most part. I think I'll try to do a test merge of information to see how this looks. I won't redirect the main article for Happy Puppy until there's a consensus though, as I don't want it to get deleted if this closes as delete for JDR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super gung-ho on keeping this, I mostly just want to make sure that this merge is taken into consideration so that if this is deleted and it gets contested, we can say that it was considered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Boppin' is up for deletion. That could probably be redirected to this article as well, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 17 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) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not overwhelmingly happy with the sourcing on the page, but there's enough there to pass notability guidelines. I think that if we lump together the article for Boppin' and Happy Puppy together with JDR's article, there is enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole. I'd actually prefer for this all to be in an article under the group's name of Accursed Toys since Happy Puppy and Boppin' were technically released by the group, but the information about JDR wouldn't fit neatly in that article and part of the sources about her are needed to really help push notability. It's not the strongest keep and I do think that this should probably be revisited in the future if notability guidelines grow more strict (which is one of the few givens on Wikipedia), but for now she seems to pass notability guidelines. It's not the strongest keep but I think that if we get rid of the individual pages and make this the main article for everything, it'd pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:43, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HomeFix Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability because there is insignificant coverage and there are no independent and reliable sources. – Zntrip 05:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. @Zntrip may wish to bundle some of the creator's other corporate pages into this nom. Pax 09:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A company going about its business, but accreditations and placings in top-25 or top-3% of non-notable rankings do not substantiate encyclopaedic notability; searches are turning up a couple of mentions of telemarketing judgments but I am seeing no coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brody[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial in-depth support. Article is more vanity piece lacking substance than encyclopedic. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ViableType, Inc. (agency)) reddogsix (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only minor updates, many by bots, since creation. Still no references. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no evidence of notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:08, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Obsolete shows[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. The wiki trend of giving every tour or group of concerts a devoted article, sources only from fan sites, should be countered. --Animalparty-- (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:45, 23 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]

Delete per nom. Pax 08:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katrin Johansson[edit]

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

Thrice speedily deleted on creation (non-notable; advertising), the fourth incarnation of this article has stuck. All two of the refs are broken meaning WP:BLPPROD appears to apply but I am bringing this to AfD because the original speedy deletion rationales still appear to apply: there is not (as yet) sufficient indication of notablity and the article was created by a user who appears to have a conflict of interest (User:Lifelinetracks; "Katrin was involved in electro house project Lifeline") RichardOSmith (talk) 16:59, 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 Finland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pax 08:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go (2010 G-20 Summit song)[edit]

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

Please see WP:NSONG: this promotional song may have charted (but #106 on the Gaon chart isn't all that great), but such articles need to pass the GNG first, and this one doesn't. It's here as a. a good reason to list a bunch of YouTube versions of the song; b. list a plethora of supposedly involved artists; and thus c. function as filler for those artists' individual templates (see Template:Kim Jonghyun, for instance). Drmies (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This wasn't even a regular single for sale, it was given out at the Asia Song Festival that year for a 1000KRW (~1USD) donation to UNICEF. Guess they counted those as "sales." It falls in the same category as the tourism-promoting songs. And yes, this article is being used to claim independent notability for nearly everyone who participated in it as well as fill up their templates. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 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 redirect. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination. As Gene93k points out, it is necessary to preserve the history for attribution purposes following a merge so a redirect is the appropriate action here and this is what has been done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shiva[edit]

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

Merged to The League Deunanknute (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator redirected

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If content has been merged, the correct action is to redirect, not delete. That will preserve attribution history per Wikipedia's copyright rules. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SafetyNet[edit]

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

Software fails WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG. More importantly, however, I maintain this is a pretty clear example of a G11 despite it being declined. The article comprises a brief definition, an official website link, operating system compatibility, and a big list of features copy/pasted from the dev website. That's all. If what's on Wikipedia would be just as at home on a spec sheet or marketing brochure on the company website, it should really be G11. (It was not, btw, CSDed for WP:COPYVIO reasons as I had not yet noticed the extent to which the features list was copied). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It also appears that this article was created/written by the software developer (at his/her userpage: "My Professional presence on the web is: http://devmentor.org"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are turning up no evidence that this framework has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manas Robin[edit]

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

non notable, only sources found were about events at which this person performed, not himself. per WP:MUSICBIO Deunanknute (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator new sources

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I'm not sure about their musical work, but they appear to have been received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of them such as, -[56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], etc. Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO #1 and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears notable per this and this. PamD 23:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above passes WP:MUSICBIO point 1 the local North east India coverage Here and Here. makes him pass WP:GNG marginally.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:55, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New America Media[edit]

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

Nomination completed by Reyk _YO! on behalf of an IP editor:

My rationale is that it does not meet WP:ORG.- 71.128.35.13 (talk

Keep. Per the Knight Foundation, this is "is the largest, oldest and most diverse network of ethnic media outlets in the United States." [64] It's covered in many sources, for example [65] [66] [67] [68], and a Google search shows that it is referenced and/or consulted repeatedly in connection with stories about ethnic media. Passes WP:GNG, and, considered as a media outlet, also passes WP:NMEDIA #4 and #5.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacific News Service. Not enough RS clout; article comprised of OR puffery. Pax 23:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 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 Merge to List of hotels in Andorra. Michig (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Kandahar[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Included references are in my view WP:ROUTINE common hotel listings with no assertion of notability. I found some additional WP:RS but none with significant coverage to establish notability. I tagged the article to allow for proper sources to be found, but the author removed them and asked me to take the issue to AfD instead Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a notable skiing resort, and Hotel Kandahar is the top listed hotel in the town, and it also came up in a list of hotels in Andorra which seemed notable when compiling the list, plus somebody thought it notable enough to photograph. It would be good to find more on it, but even as it is there is at least a mention and some basic coverage in reliable sources. I'd imagine that there would be significant coverage of it in Andorran newspapers and probably magazines featuring skiiing in Andorra which can't be accessed online. If nothing else can be found on it then a merge into a List of hotels in Andorra with a good summary for each might be the way to go. Personally though, I think having articles like this makes us that more valuable as a resource and should be nurtured as much as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Hello, the WP:RS with the brief mention you added in Spanish is also the only one I could find in my WP:BEFORE, If no additional sources with significant coverage are found to justify inclusion, I would vote as you suggest to merge it into a List of hotels in Andorra if this article is created and if it meets WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: Visitors to the town are likely to search for information on the hotel. There seem to be enough independent sources to justify a stand-alone article. I would also have no problem with a redirect to a section in a list of hotels in Andorra, with that section holding the information. I think technically this AfD should close as keep, then the merge be done afterwards if agreed that the topic is worthy of WP coverage, but is not substantial enough to deserve a full article. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All hotels are mentioned in travel guides and most have passing mentions. For this hotel to meet WP:GNG and have it's own independent article, we need to find significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that treat the subject extensively.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, possibly to El Pas de la Casa, article on the ski resort, though I can't tell if the hotel is part of the resort entity or not. Or, better, merge to a List of hotels in Andorra, though currently that is a red-link. There is a list of Andorra hotels within big List of hotels, specifically at List of hotels: Countries A#Andorra, but the apparent formatting practice in that list-system is not to provide detailed coverage. So a separate proper list of Andorra hotels, allowing for more coverage about each, is needed, i guess. I see other examples of split-out lists, e.g. link from List of hotels: Countries B#Bangladesh to List of hotels in Bangladesh, although that is not a great list-article. All items in a list should be sort of notable, too, but need not meet Wikipedia notability standard. Hmm, started one at Draft:List of hotels in Andorra. Help develop this and/or move it to mainspace, anyone? I can't move it myself due to an editing restriction. I think it is already okay as a minimal article. --do ncr am 23:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning merge, but a concrete merge target has not emerged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is Draft:List of hotels in Andorra, submitted to AFC. Anyone but me could move that to mainspace and then this AFD could be concluded with Merge. Or this AFD couldl be concluded with "Merge soon, when possible". --do ncr am 05:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: List of hotels in Andorra now in mainspace. Per Northamerica's comment, this AFD could now be closed with Merge to that. --do ncr am 19:36, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climb Online[edit]

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

I've tidied this up a bit: there were some unreliable sources (SEO/marketing blogs, mostly) which I've removed. What's left is, well, not much. This company exists currently as a holding page. It does not satisfy WP:ORG—the fact that it was founded by the winner of the latest season of The Apprentice UK doesn't count for much as notability isn't inherited.

The reliable sources that are left do not satisfy WP:GNG: the Independent article mostly consists of amusing Twitter posts about the last episode of the Apprentice. The Daily Mirror source consists purely of discussion from the television show. The Coventry Telegraph article does not provide the sort of detailed coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. The Telegraph.co.uk article mostly consists of quoted tweets from people live-tweeting the show and quotes from participants on the show.

The only other reliable source I've been able to find is this Daily Mail article, which is a TV review article about the final of the show.

Substantial coverage this ain't. An opinion piece in the Daily Mail and a couple of "what did viewers on Twitter say?" articles: it's hardly a case study in the Harvard Business Review. (No smoke in this case may reflect no fire: while this enterprise may represent the Apprentice winner that finally goes on to great things, most of the previous brands have disappeared without trace after the show ended.) —Tom Morris (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had the topic been mentioned only in small/local newspapers, this article clearly would've been non-notable. But, The telegraph and independent are major newspapers with a global audience, so even the mentions should make it notable.NetworkOP (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What is in question here is the website and/or business of this name. The available coverage is reheating the final of a reality TV show. Even this site itself seems to contradict the page text: "Here at www.climbonline.co.uk we provide information for rock climbers based in the North East of England. We are not an Online Digital Marketing agency" [69] Who knows what the future will bring but at this point this fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Hodges[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The latest attempt to use Wikipedia to promote Hodges. Once again it's sourced to passing mentions, listings and a non mention plus imdb, a press release and a marketplace. The one exception is the local interest piece on a locally made film. The only thing changed since last deletion is the release of Sand Castles (at afd) and some awards for that film, but none of theose awards are major awards. A look at sourcing at time of nomination.

1 listing only

2 marketplace

3 short piece with trivial coverage of Hodges

4 article title changed to deceive. passing mention only. Does not verify claim made (only supporting, not starred)

5 does not verify claim made, no mention of Hodges or Mary’s Buttons

6 imdb

7 local interest piece

8 listing only, does not verify claim of premier

9 press release

10 listing only, does not verify claim of award

11 mention only, does not verify claim of award

Hodges is still not notable. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable productions, only one significant role in a bluelinked film and that's also up at afd. He lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a repost from "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures which owns Sand Castles" [70] using another sockpuppet (SPI). Part of their promotional campaign [71] " That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now." Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. Delete Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we ignore WP:ADHOM arguments or poor claims and admitted transparencies of two years ago, we may look instead to the topic itself to determine if actor/filmmaker Jordon Hodges OR his works have enough coverage to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG and WP:BIO... or not. If the article had been created by an experienced editor, would we gauge it more harshly or less? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage by multiple independent sources such as this [72]. Sand Castles is a notable mainstream independent film that afd's consensus is quite clear. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An indiscriminate local interest puff piece that lacks any depth of coverage about Hodges. I disagree with your analysis of the Sand Castles afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did manage to find quite a bit of independent sources for multiple films, most articles refer to the movie Sand Castles. [73] [74] [75][76][77][78] As stated above, Sand Castles is a notable mainstream indie film; Hodges is the lead actor, screenwriter and producer of Sand Castles. Johnnylego88 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Johnnylego88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photon etc.[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:CORP
unable to find coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH Deunanknute (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep change due to new links Deunanknute (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also unable to find any indpeth coverage. Mostly all that can be found is listings in company directories of various websites. I found one article talking about a research product they released 2 years ago, but it seemed like it was just copied from another WP:SPS, just not enough to establish WP:CORP. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - There are sources about some of their research, but I can find any independent sources that cover the company in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 01:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to 'keep' based on sources found by LauraIsabelleDB.- Mr X 22:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources examples include different societies' websites such as [29] and [30] and well known journals such as La presse [2] and Le devoir [3] where the history and the research and development of the company can be found and various scientific journals like Applied Physics letter [20], Progress in Photovoltaics [21] and Biophotonics [24] where complete descriptions of the technology can be found. This is without mentioning the coverage of the different spin-offs of the company which also give notability to Photon etc, see: [11] and [12]. With all those sources, the article meets the criteria of notability WP:ORGDEPTH. - LauraIsabelleDB 18:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Scientific references (pear-reviewed articles mentioning the use of their technology and patents) are numerous, which is in accordance with WP:ORGDEPTH. Although it looks like the page was created by someone close to the company, the tone of the page is neutral WP:NPOV. Lingau.alex 09:32, 04 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Registration[edit]

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

Non Notable website. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC). This music website is included into (and therefore meets the traffic, reliability, etc requirements for) Google News(See: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=site:theearlyregistration.com). Pigeons and Planes has cited The Early Registration. (See: http://pigeonsandplanes.com/2014/09/watch-kanye-wests-surprise-performance-at-chicagos-aahh-festival/). OkayPlayer has cited The Early Registration. (See: http://www.okayplayer.com/news/common-jay-electronica-kanye-west-aahh-fest-video.html). The Early Registration's reviews are often cited on Wikipedia album articles, and having a wikipedia page for The ER is in the reader's best interests.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It probably could have been deleted under CSD A7. There do not seem to be any independent sources that discuss the website in any depth. Fails WP:WEBCRIT.- Mr X 01:42, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian jordan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC Cult of Green (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Diamonds[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. This article has been tagged for notability for almost seven years. The article's only reference is not primarily about the artist. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very weak Keep two albums on major record labels (Sony?) so may slide past with WP:NMUSIC . There are some very weak hits on google books, mostly german language. Also German and ?Czech language WP pages offer some (weak) support, although it looks like the equivalent of an AfD occurred on the German WP and the article was strongly considered for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 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 keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and no one else recommends that the page should be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panoz PZ09[edit]

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

no references, no search results, vehicle not believed to exist Deunanknute (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator now a redirect

comment posted here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport to get expert input re: possible hoax. --Gaff (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definately not a hoax, but article needed to be generalised. --Falcadore (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movavi Video Suite[edit]

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

non notable, unable to find non trivial coverage from reputable sources per WP:CORPDEPTH Deunanknute (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 13:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 13:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about similar software packages with even less sources, what about those - CyberLink Media Suite, AVS Video Editor? Insanity Raccoon (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about this articles merits, not others (see WP:OSE). Deunanknute (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any WP:RS to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (software). I'll look at articles listed by User:Insanity Raccoon to see whether they shouldn't be nominated here, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:25, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Sea[edit]

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

Three years have passed since the creation of the article, there is not one reliable source that discusses about the band. It clearly fails WP:GNG. TerryAlex (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see references of the cameo TV appearances and references of the record label they're signed to. The article seems to suggest that the group has verifiable sources, yet none are referenced? If no references are added to back up the material written within the article, I would have to agree that this article fails to meet the requirements of having reliable and verifiable sources, in which case, delete. WeAreAllStars (talk) 9:16, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The link to their official site is dead but I found much more info by searching with their Korean name, 안녕바다 through Naver. Seems they use Twitter and Facebook now instead, both of which are active. I got some hits in Korean media, as well, through Naver, including a long interview in the Kyunghyang Shinmun. Looks like they are not typical kpop and I think there is unlikely to be much info in English, but it's probably out there in Korean. Their Korean Wikipedia article is also short (like most KR WP articles) but indicates they released another album in 2013. I'm not saying they definitely pass notability, but I think they definitely could. edited to add: They are on Fluxus Music's homepage, so that much is legit. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just adding that if kept, this article should probably be moved to "Annyeong Bada" or "Annyeongbada", as I found no evidence they ever translate their name. The name was only transliterated (romanized) on Fluxus' site, not translated. BBS could redirect. Shinyang-i (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you can try adding a paragraph with some references to the article, because it does not look good right now. :)--TerryAlex (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding ample info in English now (under Annyeongbada) but it's all non-RS, as is most kpop stuff in English. There are RS in Korean but it'll take forever for me to translate them. I've tidied the article up a bit and added a source which is, at the moment, their site on Fluxus. It's not ideal but better than nothing. I'll try to do more in the next few days. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 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 keep. The nominator has subsequently cast a keep !vote thereby de facto withdrawing their nomination and there are no other arguments to delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CuSil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. ~~No sources are cited and no claim for notability is made.~~ Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are about 200 journal papers mentioning this stuff, I've added some content and it might be ok now. However; If we have a page on one of their alloys then we could end up with pages on all of them, turning us into an advertising space. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful encyclopedic information. Sourcing needs to be improved. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A source is added and a claim is made. This article can be kept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 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. Michig (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Bordia[edit]

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

This person is not a notable and did not make any significant contribution so far to the society, therefore nominating this article for deletion. The whole article seems to be created by the person who is working in the same organization where the person whom this article describing working. Also, the whole article seems likes an advertisement. Additionally, most of the provided references containing the material which is either published by the same person who created this article or any unreliable third party source. Chu86happychu 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Who is he again? Did he discover the theory of evolution? I mean who knows this guy? Jackninja5 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I am not sure of any of the Wikipedia's notability guidelines, subject would be able to satisfy at this time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - We are planning to update the article further to make it more relevant in context of technology related training. This would help readers in finding the right path/guidance when looking for training about some specific technologies (talked about in the article). Request for some time for further improvement of the article. Vishal0soni (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal0soni (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vishal0soni: -Who is We? Please answer two more questions. Is your account shared between you and many others? Are you getting paid to edit/write Badal Bordia or any other article on Wikipedia? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: - Hey Anupmehra. We are a group of 3-4 technology enthusiasts, residing in Udaipur, Rajasthan, and working in a private IT organization. Few weeks ago, while reading some article on Wikipedia, i was caught up with the power and capabilities of Wikipedia, and realized that i could contribute in strengthening up this world-wide knowledge-base by adding information that i know and see around. I started editing articles, enjoyed this Wikipedia world, and am eager for deeper dive to explore more. When i shared this idea with my friends here, they also liked the idea, and then WE started improving the articles on topics we know about. We also tried to explore ways of creating new topics, we succeeded in some, struggling with some more. Hope this helps understand our purpose. Vishal0soni (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you answering the questions. Here is how you can save the article from deletion, -find multiple secondary, reliable sources (e.g., newspapers, magazines, books, journals, etc.) that are independent of Badal Bordia and discuss him in some detail (at least in two paragraph). If you are able to get access to such sources, please present them here or better use in the existing article (sources are not required to be online). I have also left you a message on your user talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra:: Thanks for your kind guidance. I will try to improve this article as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Vishal0soni (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, the subject does not match any eligibility criteria. I doubt this is a promotional article. The author is an employee of "Advaiya Solutions" where the subject is working as a principal. Athachil (talk) 08:39, 4 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.