< 26 March	28 March >

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lannel hamilton[edit]

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

I can't find the significant coverages in multiple Reliable sources to meet WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The only reference is that he was hurt and couldn't play. Not notable. AlbinoFerret 19:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet criteria for WP:NSPORT thus WP:GNG. RobBertholf (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julia Stamatova[edit]

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

Not notable per tennis notability guidelines. No WTA main draw appearances, no Fed Cup, no $50,000 tournament wins, no notable junior career, does not meet WP:GNG. Has previously been deleted via PROD, and has not become notable since. Fazzo29 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete when the guideline is so specific it doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not really even close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The WP:NTENNIS guideline is pretty clear about the $50k minimum, her best was $10k based on IFTT. RobBertholf (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kathleen Staudt[edit]

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

I can't find anything to establish the subject notability. All I can see is self-published works. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked up the books and most of them are not self-published; they are published by university presses like University of Arizona and University of Texas. 18:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.36.227 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep In this academic area, the h-index of 24 given by Google Scholar for the subject looks like a reasonably good indicator that she meets WP:PROF#C1 (though I'm open to correction if other sources suggests that this is one of the cases where GScholar has got things wrong). PWilkinson (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5: she holds an endowed chair at UTEP, as I just added to the article. Probably she also passes other clauses of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR but this one is clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein's point about WP:PROF#C5. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Editors who have suggested that the text be merged elsewhere should feel free to pursue that option if they wish. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lambda (unit)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, of course this doesn't even meet the standard of a dictionary as the definition section is blank. -War wizard90 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. A well-known non-SI metric unit. Plenty of references exist, and two have been added to the article. Also, as another editor notes below, this is not dictionary content; it's weights and measures, which is almanac content, specifically included in WP:5. The definition section is no longer blank, so there is no longer a valid deletion criterion. -- 120.17.41.188 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment This is not an issue of notability and thus not a question of the existence of references or how well-known it is. It is a question if it is capable of becoming more than a dictionary definition, this doesn't meet the standards of a stub. There is no purpose in keeping an article about an obsolete unit of measurement that will never go beyond a dictionary definition, regardless of whether it is material that would be included in an almanac or not. Be careful of editors who WP:CHERRYPICK Wikipedia policies to support their statements. Also per WP:5, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, more specifically, Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. There simply is not enough content here to warrant a standalone article. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. There is enough material on the history of this unit to take this to a standalone article. You only say "there simply is not enough content here to warrant a standalone article" because you have not looked. -- 120.17.41.188 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're making assumptions, how do you know I have not looked? I looked and did not find much, simply saying it was used in chemisty once isn't enough for a standalone article. Sure there are plenty of verifiable sources, but they all say the same few things about it. If you believe there is enough material on the history of the unit for a standalone article, then by all means, improve the article to avoid this deletion. You have made some improvements, but a history of once being used in chemistry still isn't enough. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I vote delete because the content can fit easily in Lambda and that article would serve as a better incubator for the content. if Lambda as a unit of measurement gets so much information in the article it can spin out we could then split the article and have Lambda (unit) be a great article not a stub. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. If the content is merged, Lambda is in my view a poor target, because it has nothing to do with measurement. Logically Lambda (unit) belongs with other non-SI metric units like calorie, erg, or Angstrom, but most of those have their own page. Since it's an alternate name for "microlitre," litre might be an appropriate merge target. However, even if such a merge occurs (and I would argue against it), there is no reason at all to delete the article history. -- 120.17.41.188 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response The rason I think Lambda would be a good article is that the article already has sections "Lambda as a name" and "Lambda as a programming construct" so having "Lambda as a unit of measurement" isn't that much of a strech for the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I found another reference to its use in chemistry making think that it has some historical significance related to the early science of chemistry. Bfpage |leave a message 21:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Read the nomination reason, the issue is not Notability, so finding more sources to backup previously made statements does NOT make this article somehow more worthy of inclusion. The issue is that there isn't enough information in reliable secondary sources to warrant anything more than a dictionary definition. So, perhaps, a transwiki to Wiktionary would be appropriate, but a dictionary definition of a rarely used term is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Yes, it was historically used in chemistry/medicine and may see some small uses today, but how does that translate into an article that can "minimally" meet the requirements of a stub? Don't forget, AfD, is not here just to debate the merits of the notability of articles. Notability is not the only factor in determining the appropriateness of an article. Simply put, and as I already stated in the nomination, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is nothing more than a dictionary definition with as yet, no substance to make it an article and no evidence that enough content is out there to make it substantial. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. In spite of being deprecated, the lambda as a unit is still used. This is probably because it avoids errors where a µ is misread as an m (which, in medicine, would result in a massive overdose), but I haven't yet found a reliable reference for that. -- 120.17.117.224 (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to a new section of lambda. When I saw this, I was ready to hate yet-another-stupid-unit-article-with-the-almanach-crowd, but the article as it stands is more than just a dictionary definition: it discusses the problems with µL that can be mixed up with mL with what looks like a reliable source. Alas, this is a WP:PERMASTUB, so I would merge it with lambda. Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge - per the rationale given by Tigraan; merging to lambda seems like the best option, because while the article is notable, it will almost certainly never be expanded beyond a stub. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep asaseparate article "never will be expanded beyond a stub" is not a reason to merge. permeant stub articles are appropriate when there is a separate and specific meaning. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Highlights problem of dosage size confusion RobBertholf (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temnozor[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability by Michig seven years ago; time for resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I don't see any criterion of WP:NBAND being met. Happy to reconsider if sufficient sources are found. --Michig (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NBAND. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as above Red Cafetiere (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NBAND. –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 16:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning Tower of Nevyansk[edit]

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

No reliable sources in article. Article appears to be primarily a translation of Russian material, so some WP:OR concerns too. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment – if not independently notable, a selective merge to Nevyansk would enhance that article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge I agree that Nevyansk would be a great home for this information that can't stand on its own. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Firstly, our policies and guidelines do not and have never banned articles because their source material "appears to be primarily a translation of Russian material" or any language's material. The writing of articles that are based primarily on non-English reliable sources is encouraged - See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's hard to imagine such a monument in the United States or United Kingdom even being considered for AfD. Plenty of sources available in Russian or otherwise.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Secondly, by the nom's statement "No reliable sources in article" indicates a complete lack of following WP:AFD's WP:BEFORE. It took me seconds to find these sources. As WP:AFD states, if "adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Oakshade (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The thing is that with no english sources - the ones you linked to also appear to be all Russian sources, inclusion of them involves a certain level of WP:OR that being said, I'd agree with the prior two suggestions to merge with Nevyansk. Simonm223 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can make your case on the WP:BIAS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias talk pages that non-English sources should not adequate to demonstrate notability in Wikipedia because you believe "OR" is involved.--Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable 18th century building, which would be obviously notable whichever country it was situated in. Once again, we have editors who don't understand what OR is (a tiresomely increasing problem). Translations of foreign material do not fall into this category. Please actually bother to read WP:OR (or even the "this page in a nutshell" section) before you cite it. It really doesn't say what you think it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, obviously, due to extremely unusual nature and history of building from what I read in the article which makes it clearly noteworthy, so I would completely expect there would be sourcing about it. Further I assume good faith that the Russian language sources do serve as editor Oakshade asserts they do, just like we AGF about off-line sources. AGF rather than OR is the relevant assumption. Scant risk that this is a hoax which experienced editor Oakshade is pulling on us. :) --do ncr am 12:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. While this article could use some de-mystification, I see nothing concerning about notability. Why this was brought up is the greater mystery.--Auric talk 18:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Any building of this age is notable IMHO. RobBertholf (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Premeditated murder[edit]

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

Not a seperate crime. Murder is always premeditated. Premeditation is what distinguishes it from manslaughter. Even the link to the US law provided in the article states that murder by itself includes premeditation. The term Premeditated murder is nothing but a pleonasm. T v x1 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Murder Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep it's a stub now but it could be improved easily. deletion should be for articles that have no hope of being good. This article could easily rack up references to an articles worth of content. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and improve. Certainly not a pleonasm. The suggestion that pre-meditation is always an element of murder is verifiably wrong. In Bermuda, there is or was a "separate offence" of "premeditated murder" under section 286A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1980: discussed in this judgment, which seems to have formerly carried a mandatory death penalty: [8]. In England, a murder can certainly be committed without pre-meditation (see, for example, page 497 of the 13th edition of Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law or any other book on English criminal law, such as these: [9] [10]. Lord Hailsham said that premeditation was unnecessary in R v Cunningham, following Hyam v DPP. And this is a very well known fact). 18 U.S. Code § 1111 does speak of premeditated killings, in the context of first degree murder only, and one does find sources discussing this and calling it "premeditated murder": [11]. One can also find discussion in the context of South Africa: [12] (apparently a reference to the mandatory sentence imposed on "planned or premeditated murder" by section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997). James500 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - AfD is not a clean-up tool. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, notable topic. AFD is not for cleanup. — Cirt (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - while it needs cleanup, it meets WP:GNG; furthermore, as others have noted, premeditation is not an inherent part of murder in all jurisdictions. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. sufficient consensus for deletion DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CBB Model[edit]

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

Borderline WP:A11, one published article by PhD candidates. No hits in scholar/Google. All references are from same people as term inventors. (also see Cultural neuropsychiatry) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the content can easily find a home in Clinical neuroscience. Clinical Neuro is small and could easily absorb the CBB model ( and any other models ) and if it gets big we can spin out later but right now this Article doesn't stand on its own. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I don't agree that the content should be moved, as there are no usable references for it at this time. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural neuropsychiatry[edit]

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

Borderline WP:A11, one published article by PhD candidates. No hits in scholar/Google. All references are from same people as term inventors. (also see CBB Model and created redirects) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete any wikiworthy content could go to neuropsychiatry and if "cultural" neuropsychiatry grew enough we could make it its own article then. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete None of the sources listed are usable per WP:MEDRS, which should govern this article. And I don't think that it would be possible to find any usable sources. Looie496 (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics . MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 attendance[edit]

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

Trivia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Cruft at its finest. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, also it's completely unsourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Merge Put like the top 5 attendances into List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics instead, with sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as above. -- Chuq (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails notability as a standalone article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Delete Guys please tell me what should I have to do?, to save this article!, This is my first article and I worked really hard on it. And its a valid article guys trust me. Anup Allwin (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you can merge some of it to List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics? Remember to use reliable sources to source the information. Otherwise, the material might be reverted for being original research or unverifiable. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete An article for attendance? Can be added as two more sentences in List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics!. Aaron--(talk) 06:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jaaron95: I agree, adding some of this to List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics would probably be the best solution. Having a whole article is just excessive stats, WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics (with the history preserved under the redirect) per WP:PRESERVE. Although this content is not suitable as a standalone article, parts of it might be able to be included in List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I have invited contributors of List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics to participate in this discussion at Talk:List of 2015 Cricket World Cup statistics. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 Procedural close. The previous debate closed as withdrawn only two hours before this opened, when the previous nominator correctly judged that no consensus would be reached. Another debate so soon after is not appropriate.

See WP:DELETE: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly" and "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion was improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review." Fences&Windows 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andreas Lubitz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:BLP1E - yes, it was a fairly noteworthy event at this time, however he is unlikely to receive ongoing event, the subject is otherwise unknown (#2), he has only received coverage in reguards to this (#1), and the event is relatively insignificant as a crash(#3) as it is not one of the "top few" which are often requoted, it will likely fall into insignificance, ~~with no significant context, other than it is currently receiving lots of coverage~~. Suggest merging into Germanwings Flight 9525 as appropriate. Mdann52 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect/merge to Germanwings Flight 9525 as suggested by Mdann52. This falls squarely under WP:1E. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep, completely disagree with the above, as: The subject is now well known by a large amount of people; his persona has received coverage not only with regard to the airplane crash, but also wrt mental health; every air crash is almost always very significant; and the context added is significant, too. -Mardus (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is not a typical air crash; this is a rare and highly notable event of an individual in an unusual position of power over the lives of others taking those lives. This person will likely now be the subject of case studies for as long as there is manned flight. bd2412 T 17:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Notable because it is very rare that an aeroplane crash is intentionally caused by the plane's own co-pilot, not by a hijacker or a terrorist. The article is well sourced too. JIP | Talk 17:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge and Redirect. There is no reason to expect this person will ever be known for anything other than his role in this one event, which is (and will be) better documented in another article. In the very unlikely event that ever changed, it could be spun-out into a separate article, but that is speculative. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being known for one event is not a valid deletion rationale. We have no policy that states articles for people should be deleted because they are known for one event. We do, however, have WP:ONEEVENT that states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". If you're instead arguing that his role or the event is insignificant and can address the issues of WP:LASTING now that industry standards for major airlines has changed as a result, then I'll need to review your sources that support your opinion on the matter. Meanwhile, there are several sources that state this does have lasting consequences for the industry and the individual and event has received significant coverage. Mkdw ^talk 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep for the same reason I gave in the first debate some hours ago. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz). Once all these tags go we can get down to actually working on the article. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep There is no article for Tsu Way Ming, but Gameel Al-Batouti has a pretty extensive article. More information about Lubitz could come out in the future. Morhange (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep - The whole crash and himself have obviously received alot of coverage and then there's the fact he appeared to have some sort of mental illness, As BD2412 notes this is extremely rare so IMHO should be kept. –Davey2010^Talk 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Germanwings Flight 9525 per ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:ONEEVENT and Mdann52. Only notable for the crashing of Germanwings Flight 9525. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CookieMonster755: WP:BLP1E is for living people. If you're still in favour of redirect/merge, please thoroughly review and cite an applicable policy. Mkdw ^talk 20:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mkdw: - I updated my reason why to redirect. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mkdw and CookieMonster755: BLP1E is a part of WP:BLP, which does state it applies to recently deceased persons, which appears relevant here. Mdann52 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdann52: I would like to point you to this sentence, directly in the section that is tagged with WP:BLP1E, "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals.". Living is italicized and was intentionally put in there because BLP deals in some cases of recently deceased, but there was a need to have parts of it not deal with that issue. Mkdw ^talk 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep per BD2412 and Morhange. Looks like WP:1E on the face of it, but the wider issue of mental health looks bound to create extensive non-routine coverage. GregorB (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Firstly, there are plently of sources concerning this person. Secondly, the merge of this article into the crash itself is unwise because the history of the pilot will really help to understand the genesis of the suicide. A long description of the personality in the crash article would look out of context. It is the reason why I would favour a separate article. Malosse (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per BD2412. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the history of this person's health is likely to be used as a case study in what to look for in a mentally disturbed pilot. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Two points of order:

WP:BLP1E is "Biographies of Living People". That's what the "L" stands for in the link. Anyone citing that as a "policy based" argument is actually not. The wording for WP:BIO1E is different. WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are two of the most improperly cited rationales for deletion after WP:NOT. Most people assume that anyone only notable for one event is not noteworthy enough for a standalone article which is not what the policy states at all. It actually, clearly states, "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". This individual has received significant coverage because of their involvement. Almost unprecedented amounts for a pilot.
The incident already has lasting consequences per WP:LASTING. Several airlines and alliances have stated industry wide changes as to the minimum number of authorized personnel in the cockpit. The German aviation authority is expected to introduce legislation (something directly cited in LASTING) which is why airlines have already introduced these policies. This is the very definition of WP:LASTING and why we have it. Any statements that this will "likely" fall into insignificant is literally a personal opinion based on nothing found in a reliable source. We don't use WP:OR to tell us the notability of things. We use publications and reliable sources.

This could arguably be a procedural close for no valid del rationale. I would also like to remind Mdann52 that the previous AFD was closed less than two hours prior with a strong consensus as keep. A renomination falls under WP:DPAFD and could constitute directly as disruption. Mkdw ^talk 20:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mkdw: That was closed as a (speedy) keep as a withdrawn nomination. Remoninating one of those is generally, IMO, not as disruptive. Additionally, BLP1E also applies to recently deceased people, as does the rest of the policy, although that may just be my interpretation. Mdann52 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a sentence directly in WP:BLP1E that addresses the issue of WP:BIO1E, in that context, and says "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals." so I strongly contest your interpretation. The word is even italicized to point that out. As for the previous AFD, it was highly participated in with a clear keep outcome. The nominator even ended up !voting "Snow keep". Had this simply been a standard withdrawal, I would agree, but I think anyone looking at it would see it as double jeopardy. Mkdw ^talk 20:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Two things. If this is a notable social media network, it needs, by definition, some serious widespread sourcing to be notable; failing multiple articles in mainstream sources that report on online media, it's not notable. Second, one would expect such coverage to be sufficiently in-depth. Cunard has done (as usual) a remarkable job in finding coverage, but they appear to be lacking in both breadth and depth. In other words, as is suggested by at least two editors, it may be too soon for this outfit. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natter Social Network[edit]

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

A social network dumbing things down even worse than Twitter. Is it notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you flagged this for deletion because you don't like the website that the page refers to? Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMcNulty (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I see enough references to write a story in Wikinews about doesn't meet GNG for an article in wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I agree with RHaworth, and groaned inwardly as I saw this article. On a more serious note though, I barely see evidence the social network exists [13] let alone its notability. Sources used in the article...Buzzfeed...and an article on a .biz domain titled "How I broke new social media site Natter in 120 seconds"... Natter may someday be a great site (I certainly hope not) but it is far WP:TOOSOON to merit an article. ― Padenton|✉ 05:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the Buzzfeed article is not a good source. But the article on the .biz domain is from the magazine PCR, which is published by NewBay Media and has editorial oversight. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete One source: [14] (looks like the same one Padenton spoke of). That "natter" actually means something in normal English (= small talks) adds a lot of unrelated results and I might miss some from that, but it could be a good case of WP:TOOSOON. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It may be a social network, but not a notable one. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Improve or Delete (weak) It has some coverage, my issue is not with notability but with WP:UGLY. RobBertholf (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That your issue is not with notability but with WP:UGLY conflicts with Wikipedia:There is no deadline, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Russell, Kate (2014-12-04). "Webscape: Alternative social media sites special". Click. BBC. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
  Kate Russell of BBC notes:
  I am constantly being sent press releases about websites that claim to be the next big thing about social media but Natter wants to be the next small thing, serving up a Twitter-like platform with a limit of just three words. It's fun coming up with creative ways to express yourself with such a tight deadline or reading other people's posts. I can't see this becoming a platform people have actual conversations on them.
2. Jordan, Chris (2014-10-07). "Startup Profile: Natter – the three-word social media platform". Tech Spark. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
  According to http://techspark.co/team/^WebCite, Tech Spark has editorial oversight.
3. Barnes, Laura (2015-03-02). "How I broke new social media site Natter in 120 seconds". PCR. NewBay Media. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
  The article notes:
  PCR deputy editor Laura Barnes shares her views on the new social media website that's just secured a six-figure investment.
  ...
  Described by its developers as a nano social networking platform, ‘Natter.com was conceptualised as a three word networking service to allow friends to connect through short and snappy messages offering a new social experience’.
  ...
  “Natters tend to fall into one of three types: deeply considered and thought provoking three word statements, often with a sense of mystery, a simple check in such as ‘in the pub’ or those looking for the challenge and fun that comes with sharing their views in just three words,” comments founder Neil Stanley.
  According to http://www.pcr-online.biz/info/contact-us^WebCite, PCR has editorial oversight.
4. "Natter.com Receives Six-Figure Investment". Business Matters. 2015-03-02. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
  The article notes:
  Natter.com, the three word social network, has today received its first investment in the company as business ‘Angels’ have invested an undisclosed six-figure sum to help the tech startup continue to grow.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Natter to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cunard: First, I would appreciate it if you would remove all the webcitation links from your comments, as it makes it difficult for anyone to look at archiveurls are rarely used in deletion discussions, and the websites often strip away any stylesheets/images making the content very difficult to read.

I'll come back to this
I'm going to need to see more info before we declare TechSpark as having "Editorial Oversight" Maybe ask for comment at WP:RSN? This article also doesn't seem to have much encyclopedic information.
Citing the developers as a source. It's not reliable thorough coverage independent of the subject, which is what GNG requires.
I'll come back to this ― Padenton|✉ 04:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To view the original URLs, click on "the original" from "Archived from the original". The WebCitation links are necessary in case the article is nominated for deletion again in the future and the sources become dead links.
Here are several more articles about the company:
1. "Trio launch website to fill social network gap". Bath Chronicle. 2011-01-27. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
2. "Consultancy now provides training". Bath Chronicle. 2011-08-18. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
  The article notes:
  A social networking website launched by a Bath company in January has introduced new features as it seeks to attract more users.
  Natter.com is one of two social networking sites run from The Tramshed off Walcot Street. Natter is run by former banker Neil Stanley, while Whisbird is run by the team that is also behind the Xcetra brand agency.
  Natter's aim is for people to make new friends around the globe by allowing them to converse via a webcam in a safe way. The only tools they need are an internet connection, a webcam and a genuine Facebook account.
  Visitors to natter.com are asked to select the sort of person they are interested in meeting. Having found a Natter user, the two people can then talk, initially for just one minute. Once the minute's up, the users then decide whether they want to continue their chat, and can decide whether to add their new friend on Facebook.
  At the end of every successful one-minute chat, both users receive a 'Natter point'. Collecting as many of these as possible benefits the Natter user in the future by indicating they are polite and friendly.
3. Lamkin, Paul (2011-01-18). "Natter your way to new Facebook friends". Pocket-lint. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
  There is editorial oversight according to http://www.pocket-lint.com/info/who-are-we^WebCite
4. Smith, Mark (2011-05-05). "Fancy a natter with the new network boys?". Western Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
  The article notes:
  TWO entrepreneurs are following in the footsteps of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg after launching their own social networking site.
  Phillip Harris, 25, and housemate Tom Fide, 25, are hoping their latest creation, Natter, will be the next big online phenomenon – giving people from Rhondda Cynon Taff a safe and exciting new place to find new friends.
  Natter, which encourages “friendly and polite” webcam chatting, has been described by Mr Harris as “a form of online speed-dating” – a market untouched by the larger internet corporations.
  It has the backing of CEO and co-founder, Neil Stanley (ex-Goldman Sachs and Lombard Odier).
5. "Natter completes funding round". Newsco Insider Limited. South West News Service. 2011-04-07. Retrieved 2015-04-04. ((cite news)): Check |archiveurl= value (help)
They are 2011 articles from the newspaper Bath Chronicle, the news website Pocket-lint, the newspaper Western Mail, and the news agency South West News Service.
The second Bath Chronicle article and the Western Mail article in particular provide substantial coverage about the company. Both the 2011 and 2014 articles mention company cofounder Neil Stanley so I am certain that this is the same company. The company remains a social media network though their product has changed from webcam chatting to a Twitter-like platform with three-word posts.
Based on the sources here, it is clear that Natter the company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. sufficient consensus that BLP1E applies DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oisin Tymon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E - Prior to the Jezza incident he wasn't known at all and he'll probably be only known for this and that's it,
The incident is mentioned on both the Jeremy Clarkson article and the Top Gear article so no objections to Redirecting if wanted. –Davey2010^Talk 15:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just realized it was prodded a mere second by AussieLegend before me nominating this so pinging them. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not worth his own article on the basis of the Clarkson steak incident, classic example of misplaced BLP notability here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep while I understand the concern about BLP1E, he flys past WP:GNG and the rest of the notability criteria, and has had extensive coverage in multiple news sources. I am still planning on expansion with past this to to fill it in past 1 event but I'm on mobile right now so I'm limited. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, BLP1E applies to individuals who are notable for only one event and this is clearly the case here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is also notable for the other 8 movies/shows he has produced, which I have now added. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No he's not. He doesn't pass WP:GNG on any of these. Simply being mentioned in the credits or working on the project does not establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - The reason I prodded this article is that WP:BLP1E applies. Contrary to the claim in the first sentence of the article, the individual is not "best known for his role in producing Top Gear (2002 TV series)". He is best known for being punched by Jeremy Clarkson and it was only this incident that resulted in him being found to be a producer of Top Gear. Prior to this he was not listed as a producer of the series, this was only added to Top Gear (2002 TV series) more than two weeks after Clarkson was suspended.[15] In fact, had Tymon given Clarkson his steak, we'd probably still be blissfully ignorant of Tymon's involvement in the series. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, clear case of WP:BLP1E. Coverage is entirely in the context of a single event. January (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment to those referring to WP:BLP1E I will quote directly from there:

"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (Iffy on this point)
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. (He could gain more coverage in the future, but I'm no crystal ball)
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. (The event is significant and has recieved excessive media coverage and he played a substantial well documented role in it)"

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Point 3 of WP:BLP1E goes on to say: "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented", this is an example of what is meant by a significant event in this context of BLP1E. BLP1E also states that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Given how recent this event is (it only became public knowledge on 10 March), the coverage of Tymon cannot be described as persistent. January (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep He's the one who broke Top Gear, of course he deserves a wiki article just like Breivik, Adam Lanza or James May. 85.193.250.22 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but that isn't a valid reason for creating an article, and he is notable only for that event, so WP:BLP1E applies. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I have expanded the article quite a bit, to include more notability displaying things like his past filmography. I have also added 5 times the references as before. Can I also site WP:DONOTDEMOLISH in saying this article was nominated less than an hour after creation? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC) I also want to point out I have added references to sources outside of the Steakgate incident which reference his notability as the producer of Top Gear, much in the same way as Andy Wilman. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The number of references in the article is irrelevant. We only require BLPs to have at least one references and BLPs require strong references. Points in the article are supported by 2, 3 and 4 references, but that doesn't make the article any better, because they're all referencing the one incident. Basic information, like the birthdate, remain unreferenced and the recently added filmography is now referenced by IMDB, which is why I added ((BLP IMDB refimprove)), which you've now removed. I'm sorry, but everything in the article is biographical, so that tag was entirely appropriate. Regarding WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. the article was nominated for the obvious reason that the subject is notable only for one event and isn't going to pass WP:GNG any time soon. Davey2010's nomination was entirely appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note to say that it's considered bad form to keep altering your posts after they've been replied to.[16] Regarding that addition, Andy Wilman was notable prior to the recent incident, for many years in fact. His BAFTA awards establish his notability. The references you've been adding merely supplement the IMDB filmography. These don't establish notability on their own. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EoRdE6 - Nominating an article an hour after creation is absolutely fine, However nominating within a minute of creation on the other hand isn't, I'd also like to point out the fact I had absolutely no idea what time you even created it - I simply saw an edit summary with you stating "Linked Oisin Tymon" so thus nominated it so unfortunately the whole "This is a bad faith nom" doesn't wash, At the end of the day We don't need an article on some non-notable bloke only becoming known due to the fact he got smacked by a celebrity. –Davey2010^Talk 02:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Only notable for one event, which can be summed up in due weight on the articles on Clarkson and Top Gear '''tAD''' (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep While it is true that this is "an article on some non-notable bloke only becoming known due to the fact he got smacked by a celebrity", the events this occurance has precipitated are both ongoing and very relevant - for example, the death threats to the head of the BBC which are being reported as happening as a result of events surrounding the gentleman in question. People, do, indeed , have no idea who Oisin Tymon is, or what he has done in his proffesional career, or why he was in the position in which he found himself - and people will come to Wikipedia looking for these facts. SO - whatever any guidlines may say, the article serves a very obvious purpose, and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.108.253 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability is not inherited. With the effects from this seemingly ever-expanding, the entire incident might possibly warrant a standalone article at some point, but Oisin Tymon would be a mere mention in that article. It still would not justify a standalone article for him. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree we should basically have articles on stuff but there's just some things that just don't need an article and this is a fine example, Anyway agree with AussieLegend perhaps the incident may have an article but as for Oision.... well this is far as it goes...... –Davey2010^Talk 22:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KEEP even without the Clarkson incident he would have been notable for his large filmography background and the sources in that section. This incident just furthers his notability. 50.123.131.195 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, he wasn't notable and had no article before this event so I don't see how that claim is supportable. The world was only made aware of his existence because of the incident. A filmography (which is still partially sourced to IMDB only!) on its own does not establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not IMDb. It does not list every person involved in the making of TV shows or films. There is no way that Oisin Tymon would be notable without being socked in the face because Jeremy Clarkson did not get a steak with fondant potatoes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I'd have thought anyone who's spent a reasonable amount of time on Wikipedia would realise that this article is pointless and not needed whatsoever. The introduction is effectively talking about an incident with Jeremy Clarkson with a bit of padding about producing Top Gear. Ignoring the 'fracas' a few weeks ago, would this article have ever been created had he produced Top Gear for the rest of his life? Not a chance. 100% in favour of deletion. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If his previous achievements didn't warrant an article, being sloshed round the chops certainly won't. Also oppose redirection.--Laun chba ller 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to warrant own article, delete on the basis that any notable content from this page can be wholly integrated into either the Clarkson or TG articles. Tegrenath (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. It can be undeleted at WP:RFU when it is closer to the season. MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2015-2016 Primeira Liga[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I´m sorry, but that's the article that I´ve created. It´s because the previous league is ending and that's why I created this. Please, don´t delete this page. Goncalowiki2000 (Goncalowiki2000) 14:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - it will be notable in the future, but not now - not enough information, no sources. Also the correct article title should be 2015–16 Primeira Liga. Giant Snowman 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. – Pee Jay 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete move to WP:UD RobBertholf (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2015–16 Primeira Liga(talk) 12:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC) 2015–16 Primeira LigaReply[reply]

Delete - Goncalowiki2000 (Goncalowiki2000) 20:10 4 April 2015 (UTC)I know that, but I'm sure that will be deleted, but I will create 2015–16 Primeira Liga soon. But don't be very mad from me, I will put everything that I've put in this page after that. And 1 more thing, don't delete the page that I will create soon.
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Victor Lucas 19:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Goncalowiki2000 (Goncalowiki2000) 20:10 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the explanation,I know about that will be notable in the future, but I can't let the 2015–16 Primeira Liga been deleted too, it's because I had begun creating one of my first articles in Wikipedia. Sorry. But I certainly put on the teams save from the previous league so to be ready once it begins. Note: I will create that article in June. Does everyone agree?

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zsolt Turi[edit]

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

Was unsure to do the prod or xfd but went with this-non notable doctor from what I can tell-as a note there is a page linked to this name but a different person as it links to a sports page. Wgolf (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Non-notable postdoctoral fellow. I took out the bit about his "professional striping" and considered that this might have been set up as a hoax or an attack page, but that's the only WP:BLP issue I can see. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 120.17.117.224 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete way short of notability. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Escocia tropical (Drink)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Same as above--115ash^→(☏) 15:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete ...same reason as my original PROD, not notable. Should have been A11'd in retrospect. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Invented by article's creator or someone they know. Blackguard 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not even close to being notable. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:N. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Probably could be speedy deleted as an A11. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flameboy Pyro[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. --MessiahDark (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several Things[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG, could meet no.5 of WP:NBOOK if it exists but appears to be a WP:HOAX, google search brings up nothing, ditto worldcat search and trove (OZ librarys) search. article refers to 'Fairy Tales translated by Tiina Nunnally (2005) does not contain it.[[17]], complete list of Anderson's fairytales doesn't show it,[[18]] Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Yes, that seems to be a hoax. Good eye! HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Definitely a hoax. This is the list of Andersen's works published in 1837, and "Several Things" is nowhere to be found (nor in any other year). Amazing that the hoax lasted for more than five years! --Danmuz (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per the guideline Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. I have not been able to find any sources that discuss Several Things. The article was created by Hypocrisyofcake (talk · contribs), who also created User:Hypocrisyofcake/Peter Hastings.
Here is the article's text:
Several Things is a book written by the Danish fairy tale writer and fablist Hans Christian Andersen. It was published in 1837, just after he completed The Princess and the Pea. Several Things is a multifaceted work, dealing with a multitude of subjects, several of which are of interest to the public at large. It was not well received upon first publication. The critics had several issues with the work, including offense taken at its questionable content and long apocryphal sections dealing with apparently nothing at all.
The last sentence strongly indicates that this is a hoax.
Cunard (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1734 Zhongolovich[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirecting to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect per nom. Tigraan (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Searching finds several reliable sources describing this asteroid specifically, e.g. this. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(disclaimer: only read the abstract) I stand by my "passerby" analysis in that similar AfD, although here the asteroid is the sole subject of the scientific article. I do not think this constitutes "significant coverage" of the subject as per WP:NASTCRIT #3, because obtaining a spectrum could be done (barring technical limitations) for any asteroid, and I see no evidence than this one in particular has different properties. Yes, the resulting spectrum is detailed information that is unknown for other asteroids, but it is not significant coverage. A passerby in the street could be interviewed by television to comment on political issues and his political views may be quite unique, a short interview would still not make him notable because it could have been done with any other passerby in the same format even if the results (political views expressed) would have been different. Tigraan (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, scientific facts about asteroids are important. Also, WP:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Dealing_with_minor_planets recommends redirection rather than deletion. There's also a lot of infobox data in the article that should be kept somewhere. And the WP:Astro project should be notified of AfDs such as this. Their practice has been to keep all low-numbered asteroid articles. -- 120.17.55.175 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 seems to be preferable. Agreed with nominator. LethalFlower (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep/Applicability#1. The nomination has been withdrawn and there are no arguments to delete. The page has been moved to Od ani holeh. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still Walking[edit]

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

Tagged by Nancy for lack of notability 7 years ago; time for a resolution. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, but it does have a Hebrew language article. Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently this Hebrew-language Israeli film was NEVER released in English, and so lacks English language sources. Suggest a article name change to the sourcable Od ani holeh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. This article is about both a book and the film based on the book, both of them by the notable Israeli director Yaky Yosha. The film seems to have had several different English titles, including not only Still Walking (which is also the English title of a 2008 Japanese film) but also just plain Walking, which of course is even harder to search. IMDb uses the transliterated Hebrew title "Od ani holeh"; the last word is spelled "holekh" in a few sources. The article includes a link to a review of the film in Haaretz, but that review is no longer on line [19]; for what it's worth, that review does show up in the results of a Google search of the Hebrew names for the film and director <"עוד אני הולך" "יקי יושע">. I didn't immediately see other clearly RS reviews in the Hebrew search, but I hope someone with better Hebrew will take a look. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Just an observation: It does seem to have an amazingly low hit-count (8 hits in 90 days) and no editors seem be actively working on it. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and Move to Od ani holeh (film) (Hebrew: עוד אני הולך) (English equivalent: Still Walking) and include section on the novel by the same title. The film "appears" to have numerous Hebrew sources available (needing translation). I'm sorry that it has been ignored so long and sorry again, but WP:NEGLECT is not a deletion rationale. WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, WP:PRESERVE. Best to reach out and see what might finally be done than to delete both a film and novel by a notable individual. Here's my work space for the film article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, a/c MQS's explanation. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomination withdrawn convinced by MichaelQSchmidt. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead Sea (video game)[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have its own article. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete-Not notable, I thought this was a different game at first when I saw the deletion (don't know which I was thinking of) and was going to say keep but this is not it. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits (only this) in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 14:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as mentioned in the points above. Can't establish notability. The1337gamer (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Has been covered by Tech In Asia.[20] Not sure if it counts as a reliable source. Also covered by plenty of Thai gaming news blogs, which probably don't count.[21][22][23] (Pinging Czar per above request.) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tech in Asia's editorial policy says that every article is run past an editor, though they also want to break stories within minutes, so it's unclear what degree of oversight is had. I'd say it's gray in the reliability department, but I'm leaning towards okay since their work is cited by their video game reporting peers. The rest are more clear-cut: compgamer appears to have a print presence but I can't find mention of it in English video game reliable sources, coregamerth appears amateur, and Juropy doesn't have an editorial policy. I still don't see enough to qualify a dedicated article for this topic. czar ⨹ 08:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CURO[edit]

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

Unsourced, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (software) recomendations or our general notability guidelines Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, no 3rd party reference, just an official website and three lists of unclear unsorted items allegedly related to the subject in some undefined way. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are company sites, not WP:RS, and a search turned up no significant independent coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete- non-notable software. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palestine Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 1 delete, 2 merge to Royal Geographical Society#History and 2 keep, so overall no consensus. I hope that after new references have been added, and after not attracting a large number of comments last time, we can establish consensus now, especially as this has been left with a notability tag since Alynna Kasmira added it 7 years ago. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to the history section of Royal Geographical Society, where it can be a sourced sentence, I looked at the previous AFD, and one editor objected on the grounds that this Association predates the Royal Geographical. I see that as no hindrance to merge, many fading institutions merge into thriving institutions that postdate them. This article contains a real tidbit, that soneone who stubbles upon the Association might want to look up, making the redirect useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I have added a few sources, including an article from The Geographical Journal devoted entirely to this subject. It in certainly notable in its own right as the first "scientific" foray into the region in the modern era. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging Harrison2014, Boleyn, Tiptoethrutheminefield, Zero0000, who I believe represent all the editors involved in the previous AfD. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as the article with Oncenawhile's additions make it perfectly fine and useful by itself. Regarding the RGS, I believe that the current wording "the Palestine Association was integrated into the Royal Geographical Society" is factually incorrect, which I will argue on the talk page. Zero^talk 23:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - As in the previous AfD I see no valid reasons to delete it. Acceptable sources exist proving it existed. Obscurity is not a reason to delete. And as I said in the first AfD, because its existence PREDATES the founding of the Royal Geographical Society, any content related to its activities would be off-topic for the Royal Geographical Society article and so a merge with it would be unsuitable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep even if it was in some manner iterated or brought under the RGS umbrella, it was sufficiently distinct and important under its own name. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. sufficient consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optimus mini three[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded by Aerospeed, but has previously been to AfD. 2 AfDs have ended in no consensus, in large part because of a lack of comments. For this reason, it's sat with a notability tag on it for 7 years. Hopefully this time enough people can analyse it for us to get a resolution. If not, I think if there's been no consensus to delete at a third AfD, we should remove the notability tag. Boleyn (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notifying all who have looked at its notability before: LedRush, Mr. Guye, Trout Ice Cream, Lesser Cartographies, CowboySpartan, James500, Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Thank you Boleyn for nominating these articles I didn't feel confident in nominating myself. I PRODed this article due to notability and promotional issues. The notability issue is easier to prove, as the article has only one source, that of its own website. All other sources I've found so far clearly show the product exists, but not showing why it's notable. I found this article that does a good job describing the article, so this might be somewhat notable. The majority of the article is promotional, however, considering that there are phrases such as "The main advantage of Optimus mini three..." and "they do give an accurate look at the final design." Only the first paragraph is sourced, and it only gives info on when the product was released and what it is used for. The rest is promotional and unsourced. Overall, this looks more and more like a promotional article, and should be deleted. Aerospeed (Talk) 11:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the articles references may justify a section in Optimus Maximus keyboard but not notable on its own based on the material a search shows. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator — foxj 15:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andreas Lubitz[edit]

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

All relevant details on this man can be reasonably and in due weight be discussed on the article of the accident '''tAD''' (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: No consensus can likely be reached while this remains in the news. Bringing it up when we move to the inevitable next circle of tragedy may be better. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Very few information.
Strong keep As per WP:Oneevent, when a significant event occurs, and someone is a significant participant in that event, a separate article is usually appropriate. That is certainly the case here. Other cases: Timothy McVeigh, Anders Behring Breivik and Christa McAuliffe, all known for single events. I strong !vote to keep this article, and lets let it develop. Juneau Mike (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- From what I see on the accident's page, it is not officially confirmed that he did this, or that he did it deliberately. Could be a case of waiting '''tAD''' (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- McVeigh and Breivik also had notable trials. McAuliffe was notable for going aboard the shuttle before it exploded. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per above. Hopefully once all these tags have gone cluttering the page we can actually get down to the task of improving the article. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: subject of massive media attention, clearly meets the notability criteria. WP:ONEEVENT has an explicit exception for just this type of case: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." What makes this event particularly significant is the relationship of pilot mental health to air safety, and the details of his health and personality are highly relevant to the matter. -- Impsswoon (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. Compare with EgyptAir Flight 990, SilkAir Flight 185 or even Charlie Hebdo shooting, where the perpetrators are notable for nothing except the event. McVeigh & Breivik are different because there is much more known history, publication of political ideology, trials, sentencing etc. ed g2s • talk 11:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: Well, we are just learning about Lubitz. Current consensus among relevant law enforcement is that he committed this act. If the original "newpage" template had been adhered to, additional notability would have been established. But another editor jumped the gun and began an AfD before that new page process had even played out for a few hours. In reference to your comment, it is clear there would be neither a McVeigh page here, nor a Breivik page, had they not committed acts of terrorism. Juneau Mike (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The tag refers to the quality of the article, not general notability. If I were deleting it for its formatting, voice etc., I would be jumping the gun. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - With sincere credit given to your very prolific and good faith edits here on Wikipedia, which are well established, where you jumped the gun was starting an AfD discussion on a brand new article that for less than 3 hours had included the "newpage" template. A mere 12 or 24 hours of good faith editing by multiple editors would have established this pages position and related rankings as notable. You starting an AfD on an article still in the new page process seemed very hasty. I say all of this with respect, as you are fantastic editor. Despite our one disagreement here, I respect you and your contributions greatly. Juneau Mike (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge Anything we ever learn about this guy is going to be in the context of that one event. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - As sources begin to characterize him as a mass murderer [24], [25], the subject is in the McVeigh realm. Just let the article stand now, otherwise we'll just be back here in 2-3 weeks, there's no sense in maintaining bureaucracy for the sake of the bureaucracy. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge for now. Maybe we'll learn more about him in the coming weeks that warrants a longer, more complete article. But now, this article shows that he is famous for just one thing as it is. McVeigh and Breivik had trials, Lubitz the SilkAir Pilot, the EgyptAir pilot, and other examples died right when they did their deed. We haven't determined that his story is more "worthy" of an article than the others. SOXROX (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep as per current Wikipedia practice. There are articles for Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Anders Behring Breivik, Timothy McVeigh and several other cases where both a mass-murderer and the actual mass-murder both have an article. I don't see any difference between them and Lubitz.Jeppiz (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notable aftermath. Lubitz has none. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And they were political terrorists, so their history is part of their motives. In this case it's likely we'll never know much about the motive. As noted above, EgyptAir Flight 990, SilkAir Flight 185 and Charlie Hebdo shooting show there is no fixed "current Wikipedia practice" here. 78.86.218.155 (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as Lubitz now appears to be a notable mass-murderer. There is already much personal media coverage that goes well beyond the scope of this one massive event. Reports suggest that the consequences of his alleged mental condition and actions as a result, will change world-wide airline screening of pilots and policy regarding cabin-crew in the aircraft cockpit. Fg63 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those consequent actions have an article specifically about them, and their ramifications. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Jcmiller1215 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep for now. While it may emerge that all relevant details of this man are included on the accident page and then we can have this discussion, it was absolutely a bad faith edit for the nominating editor to blatantly ignore the good faith "newpage" template. Prhartcom (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge it is common to have the "perps" listed on the same page, i.e. Adam Lanza. Plus, i personally don't like anything that glorifies a perp. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per arguments given by Juneau Mike. There is also a need for the public to know the reasons as to what caused Lubitz to take such action, so as to enhance ways to improve a person's mental health. -Mardus (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow keep We will never have consensus here, or possibly any time in the next 4 weeks. I wish I had studied the rules a bit better before nominating this. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Another note It is always very nice to see editors I respect, but have a good faith disagreement with, make a comment such as yours above. Yes, I have been deeply involved in this debate. But in the meantime, I stayed involved, actually starting the article Anchorage Fire Department, also in the newpage phase, while all of this was going on. My point is, don't take any of this personally. We all want to make Wikipedia a better place. And we are. You are a fantastic editor. I personally despise the notability policy, but I cherish consensus. We all want a great Wikipedia! Juneau Mike (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Has the nominator withdrawn this proposal? If so, please see WP:WDAFD. We can have a new discussion later if necessary. Prhartcom (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep significant person whose actions have turned the spotlight onto the issue of mental health of pilots. it is leading to significant debate on the issue and changes in pollicy. [26]--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. User:ed_g2s is wrong on two counts: First, as per WP:OSE and WP:INN, "non-inclusion is not an indication of non-notability. [...] To suggest that a particular article is non-notable because no other similar articles exist would stunt the growth of Wikipedia, and do more harm than good", and second, the purported perpetrator in the EgyptAir Flight 990 case, Gameel Al-Batouti, does have his own article. User:Smooth0707's personal opinion about glorifying perpetrators is irrelevant to the discussion. The question to be decided is whether current policy mandates the retention or deletion of the article. The policy, WP:1E, sounds pretty unambiguous to me on this question: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." In all media that I follow, the character, history, mental state, health problems, social relations etc. of Andreas Lubitz are currently the top item being reported on, far exceeding other aspects of the crash. I don't see how following this policy could lead to anything other than keeping the article. Joriki (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 problem is not the block quotes (well, it shouldn't be--anyone who thinks that that is a reason for deletion needs to stay away from AfD), but the lack of reliable secondary sources, as is pointed out by the nominator and others. It is possible that this is potentially a highly notable topic, but the article (in writing and referencing) is so poor that it's not possible to state this with confidence. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr[edit]

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

This article should be deleted for the following reasons:

The vast majority of the article is block quotes that fall under 2 areas:
The 1st block quote area is that of Sunni scholars reproducing the hadiths contents. This is block quoting primary information, but presenting it as the words of these scholars (which it isn't) to deceptively give the impression that this issue is worthy of being an article because notable scholars quote it. These scholars have only quoted it (as numerous scholars will quote any single hadith regularly), rather than mention it any further and the fact that they don't actually discuss their interpretation of the hadith is evidence that it lacks notability. By the standard set by this wiki article, we can expect many thousands of hadiths to have their own articles because many scholars have quoted single hadiths.
The 2nd block quote area is a single shia scholar named Husain Mohammad Jafri. In fact, his quotes make up the majority of the article and it is easy to see that this articles creation was driven by a sectarian propaganda agenda.
One of the references is Answering-Ansar.org, which is clearly a shia sectarian site, whose scholarly credentials (hence eligibility to be cited on wiki) are questionable. This again supports the suspicion that this articles creation was driven by a sectarian propaganda agenda.
The articles lack of notability seems to have been unwittingly alluded to by the editor/s with the words "Although the narration is prominently quoted and referred to, it is not given any formal name, in contrast to other hadith such as the Hadith of the pond of Khumm or the Hadith of Qur'an and Sunnah." But what the editor's won’t admit is that this hadith has no name exactly because it isn't historically notable to begin with. Hence, it was left to the editor/s to give us a name for this notable hadith...how fitting! Shia are obviously, for sectarian purposes, opposed to every succession of Muhammad that precluded the appointment of Ali; however, their position is well covered in numerous other wiki articles that have the requisite notability – unlike this obscure hadith.
Apart from block quoting the actual text of the hadith and the opinions of 1 shia scholar, the article makes mention of no other opinions on the hadith, whether Western, Sunni, or any other scholarly opinions. This simply adds to the lack of notability of the article.
Strangely, we are not even told where the source of this hadith even comes from i.e. which hadith collection, such as Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari etc. So if we are not told of the hadith source then we can't even determine whether this hadith is authentic or fabricated. If it is fabricated then creating a wiki article about it would probably be unwarranted without specifying its authenticity, since this can fool people by giving them the impression that it must be automatically authentic because it is accepted on wikipedia.
It can be seen under the Contested deletion section of the articles talk page that any suggestions that the article can be improved have not materialised. I believe this has not happened simply because the ability to improve this article is not possible due to its lack of noteworthiness.

Due to these reasons, i believe that this article should be deleted as an ill-attempted piece of sectarian propaganda, that when narrowed down contains nothing more than the quoted hadith and one scholars opinion of it. 58.106.235.75 (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I lack any knowledge whatsoever of islamic texts, so I will refrain from !voting. However, I would note that if this thing is prominent in Shi'ite sources and disregarded / not even mentioned in Sunnit sources, it is not ground for deletion under WP:NPOV (Jesus is, according to most Christians, the son of god, and it is not POV to discuss it at length, although other religions disagree).

The way the nomination is written leads me to think that nominator has an axe to grind against that branch of islam; it does not mean their points are invalid, though. Tigraan (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Tigraan: Needing to resort to massive block-quoting of 1 shiite scholar does not count as "prominent in Shi'ite sources". Also your analogy of Christians and their view of Jesus isn't accurate with shiites and their views of a Sunni hadith (if that hadith is even authentic - which hasn't even been proven, or mentioned). What would be a more accurate analogy would be how Catholics would view an alleged Oriental Orthodox historical episode. But i respect your otherwise balanced approach.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Article subject is very important as it deals with succession of Holy Prophet(ص). This is one of the defining events/reasons/theories behind the classical Shia-Sunni split. What I see from article is that it list at least 10 references which for its length is not bad. Yes, it has block-quotes but IMHO opinion it is better than POV/OR. Maximum what can be done is that article is tagged for expansion/rewrite having good lead section summarizing event-cause-effects but it should noway be deleted. And at last, to me the AFD request seems to highly POV push aiming at suppression of minority/alternate viewpoint.--121.244.54.32 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- As i have shown in my arguments, there has been ample time and opportunity to expand the article with the relevant info that is needed to stave off the articles deletion; however, this has never been met. And in my defense: the only suppression that is being sought is that of content that is far below the standards of Wikipedia. My arguments are detailed and clear and in no way evade what is required of an AfD nomination.58.106.235.75 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete All of the content are just combination of primary sources. The subject is not notable enough to have material from secondary sources, if you can add something, it's OR or primary. succession of Umar or Uthman are far more notable and controversial :)Ladsgroup^overleg 12:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I have no personal view on the relative merits of the various schools of Islam, but the advocates of each have over many centuries attacked whatever supports the others, and I think this might possibly be the case here. I am not qualified to discuss the various sources on authenticity of particular hadith, but , as in all cases of religious controversy, I think we need as broad an approaches possible. Something is not un-notable because you disagree with it. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @ DGG: First of all, when you want to add your opinion please show the common courtesy of adding your comment at the bottom of the page and especially not in between an editors comments - which i have now rectified. Wikipedia isn't an arena for prima donnas. Secondly, if you really read my reasons for deletion you will find that i have clearly not argued that it is un-notable because i "disagree with it."--58.106.235.75 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per DGG. Regardless of the truth of the matter, such issues are important to many millions of Muslims, and so there appears to be sufficient notoriety to make it notable. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @ Bearian: I don't see that as being strong reasoning. You made no defense of the fact that the article is only made up of primary sources and 1 shiites quote. That doesn't scream notability and proves that it isn't really that "important to many millions of Muslims." Just because we are told something is important by some random person, doesn't mean it actually is. I would have expected more sound reasoning from someone of your level of education.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admittedly, my knowledge of sharia and hadith is fairly shallow for a person of my education. I know a bit more about Palestinian law. An expert's opinion would be helpful here. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Bearian: For someone who has studied in law you seem strangely unable to grasp the meaning of very clear arguments. This has nothing to do with "knowledge of sharia and hadith" (where did i ever tell you that!) and everything to do with wiki policy regarding notability.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please calm down a little? Even if you are not aware of it, you sound extremely aggressive.

And yes, the issue has something to do with knowledge of islamic texts. A layman such as myself will have no idea what and who is a reputable source, and what level of sourcing can be expected. A seemingly reasonably-made website or publication could be widely disregarded as junk theology by everyone in Egypt or Iran, and I would not know it. Tigraan (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Tigraan: If responding to peoples comments by highlighting the real issue is considered "extremely aggressive" then people have really become too soft and sensitive. Again, you talk about "knowledge of islamic texts" when the real issue here is notability. Quoting the primary source under numerous scholars (to give the illusion of notability) and adding 1 shiites views on this primary source doesn't count as notable. This article should really be a sentence or paragraph in the Abu Bakr article in the section of his succession—not a lone article.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" I would have expected more sound reasoning from someone of your level of education", "Wikipedia isn't an arena for prima donnas", "For someone who has studied in law you seem strangely unable to grasp the meaning of very clear arguments" are all sentences that could be taken off your comments without damaging the arguments. Did you really need them?

Again, knowledge is required to assess notability. If the aforementioned "numerous scholars" are the most prominent shi'ite theologians, their voice makes the text they discuss notable, just as well as a scientific theory is notable if all major scientists in the field start to discuss it. On the other hand, those scholars could be a bunch of nobodies that operate on youtube and to whom none listens; then, WP:FRINGE would clearly apply if the topic at hand was scientific. Deciding whether it is notable needs to assess the sources, and assessing the sources needs some moderate knowledge of the topic, which I lack. Tigraan (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Tigraan: If you paid the slightest attention to my arguments it is quite clear the scholars i am referring to are Sunni. I don't know where you got the impression i was referring to shiites. To give you an analogy of my argument that many scholars simply quoting a primary source doesn't equate to the level of notability to warrant a separate wiki article: If i give you a handful of Protestant scholars that simply quote 1 paragraph from 1 of Martin Luther's books then i add 1 quote of a Catholic scholar who discusses that 1 Martin Luther quote, does that make that quote notable enough for me to then give it a name and create a wiki article for it? If so, then i will surely be a busy person for quite some time, seeing what innumerable articles i will create for wiki. Maybe i will find a shia hadith that is quoted several times by shia (say let's call it "hadith of the corruption of the Quran) then i will add 1 Sunni scholar who has talked extensively about it...and magic, we will have 1 more article for wiki.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The issue can be covered in other articles with more contextualizing. The large block quotes in this article are not the method of Wikipedia, and it looks unlikely that we could cover this topic with non-quoted text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this section of the Abu Bakr article and this section of the Umar article more than amply cover for the succession issue (as its notability deserves). The event of succession may have some notability (though i don't believe it has the level to have its own article, just like we don't have articles for most contentious successions), however, the hadith does not have this requisite notability.--58.106.236.196 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. We don't have articles about the genealogy of Mary filled entirely with block quotes from the Protevangelium of James, roughly the equivalent of this page. Dawah is not appropriate on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2015 (
""Delete"" Too much reliance on block quotes needs better independent secondary sources possible to improve but not sufficient secondary independent sources

Unionville (talk)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zach Auguste[edit]

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

college athlete who hasn't done anything to make himself notable.CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL doesn't play basketball at the highest level in any of the leagues he has been in. Has not won any major sports awards. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CrazyAces489 (talk)

Keep: After the 03-28-15 NCAA Basketball Tournament game between Notre Dame and undefeated Kentucky, this debate is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.5.203 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: He fullfills WP:NCOLLATH's third criterion (national media attention), as he has got himself reports, as an individual, in nationwide media (National player of the week by ESPN's Andy Katz, also here, here, here). He has also gained international media coverage from his country of descent (here, here and here).Hansi667 (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I wouldn't have thought Auguste would meet WP:GNG, but I think the sources provided by Hansi667 demonstrate that he does. Rikster2 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment look at WP:NBASKETBALL . CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GNG supercedes any SSG WP:NBASKETBALL is secondary to the general notability guideline and if he met the sport-specific guideline but didn't meet GNG it could still be deleted. Rikster2 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets GNG due to sources provided. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment look at WP:NHOOPS CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't matter. GNG trumps all other specific guidelines, and Auguste meets GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Hansi667 demonstrating Auguste meets general notability requirements. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. consensus seems clear DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Us (web series)[edit]

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

I couldn't establisht hat this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Neither could I. --Inother (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Nor I... Neutrality^talk 00:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:G3. Just Chilling (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Hammet Cult[edit]

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

No reliable sources; may be an ad or a hoax. John Nagle (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article came up at WP:COIN, and appeared to be a promotion for a movie in development. The only sources are sites affiliated with the movie. The people mentioned on those sites as being involved with some murder cult don't come up in Google searches. There are no relevant news items. There's nothing in reliable sources. Or even semi-reliable sources. Something that newsworthy which happened in 2011 would have news coverage. Looks like WP:HOAX and WP:AD. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax (WP:G3): if, as the article claims, some of those people were convinced of a crime in 2011, surely it would be easy to find a link to the judgement. The absence of such sources constitutes in my opinion "blatant and obvious disinformation". As people may disagree with this argument from silence, I did not put the Speedy deletion tag myself. Tigraan (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax (WP:G3). The article is possibly promotional material for a "mockumentary production".[27] - Location (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a hoax and a gross misuse of Wikipedia. Adverting for a supposed mockumentary film. Source even explains lack of coverage by reliable sources. No reliable evidence found that the film or the event is real. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as hoax. unclear why this isn't speedy but oh well. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. Cavarrone 17:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. regardless of the irrelevant delete !vote of the apparent SPA, there actually is no evidence of notability . Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dee Datta[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete doesn't show to meet WP:NACADEMICS Other infos like here or here or here also don't indicate notability. Optimale ^Gu 13:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Searching finds nothing satisfying WP:PROF or WP:GNG. -- 120.17.117.224 (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This article has a weird history. Created with quite a bit more content, much of which was later removed, mostly by IPs - these edits particularly noticeable, as they remove the Allozyne connection, which the same IP also removed from the Allozyne article. Edit summaries indicate removing inaccurate information, yet it's clear from trivial googling that she was a founder and hard to conceive of that statement as a BLP issue. Don't know what's going on there, but in any case being a cofounder of a smallish biotech that just got sold off for scrap doesn't really clear the notability bar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The sole source mentions the subject only trivially, and doesn't give evidence for notability. As O.r. states, the past history of the article also does not show notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 21:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bag (unit)[edit]

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

~~Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Not enough content to warrant even a stub. If unit can be verified per WP:V content could be merged to bag.~~ -War wizard90 (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep This is not dictionary content; it's weights and measures, which is the stuff of an almanac. It's not clear why the nomination raises WP:V as all content is sourced; did the nominator not perform any checks himself? And merger isn't deletion - see WP:SK and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is quite an important unit -- or rather, family of units -- with lots of sources. The nom has failed to do a WP:BEFORE check. I would also argue against a merge with bag. -- 120.17.97.244 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: this has been totally rewritten since its pathetic beginnings as one of the Cardarelli follies (he no longer even gets a mention), and is now just about article-worthy. I've added OED's take on the word, and added it to Bag (disambiguation) and as a "See also" to Bag. PamD 11:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn per above. -War wizard90 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ann-Maree Biggar[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE. I find coverage that confirms she has held certain roles but nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, and not just because as the host of Agro's Cartoon Connection she was a part of my childhood. Coverage exists here, here, here and 102 results on Factiva. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. WP:CREATIVE is for artists, poets and the like. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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, relative to WP:ANYBIO, per awards the subject has received, which also demonstrate that the subject has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". It is arguable that the sources presented in the first AfD discussion and herein do not comprise significant coverage about the subject, except for one. For example, two have almost identical content, are quite short and are basically "about the author" texts written by the publisher ([28], [29], two only have passing mentions ([30], [31]), this only has a passing mention, and one has significant coverage ([32]). Overall, it's arguable that the subject may not qualify per WP:BASIC alone. Additionally, it's possible that the subject may qualify per WP:AUTHOR, criteria #1, but this potential was only touched upon herein with the link to Worldcat that shows books the subject has authored or co-authored, and would require further qualification to be proven.

Furthermore, the !voting spree by User:Dormantos was done in a rapid fashion (see User contributions in Wikipedia namespace). It's possible that they're a fast reader, but it's also possible that they didn't read the article or check for sources. Also, there is some evidence of copy/paste !votes performed by this user without article/source consideration, such as at this AfD discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vamanrao Deshpande[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. This page has "references" but they are just links to Google Books search results where the subject's name turns up in the book once. These, and links to the subject's own books, are the bulk of search results. It's unlikely that references could be found to make this subject meet notability criteria. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 05:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 05:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unreliable sources and fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the first AfD. Nothing has changed. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I agree with Michig, nothing has changed. However if kept, the article needs c/e, correct sourcing and improvements overall. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete The Article clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The awards are sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is enough indications that the subject is a notable musicologist:
- Worldcat lists quite a few of his books, held by a decent number of libraries
- Hindi Film Song: Music Beyond Boundaries mentions him as a "highly respected and pioneering music-aesthetician"
- Aesthetics of Agra and Jaipur Traditions credits him as "the first writer to give a methodical aesthetic analysis" of the various gharanas.

As User:BabbaQ mentioned, the article needs work but notability doesn't appear to be an issue. Abecedare (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 06:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chitra Group of Institutions[edit]

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

I'm not sure this is even real. It's completely unclear whether this is trying to describe a single campus containing a group of schools at various levels, or one particular school within a group. Undocumentable: the website is the only source, and well worth looking at [33], for it contains no usable information whatsoever. Check in particular the "Instructors" page [34]: it consists of photos of 4 different people all with the same name, and all described as "Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting" DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are unfair, it is the "instuctors" page, and it shows a polymorph "chamistry" teacher. Well, the website is obviously in construction with stock photos and such.

Now for the serious stuff: "huge" internet presence (linkedins and such) but no evidence at all of physical presence. Hence, straightforward delete unless sources are found (I would not say "better sources" in that case). Tigraan (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete; unable to find any sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 14:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. A website full of lorem ipsum is probably an hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails verifiability. Cavarrone 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - what do they think Wikipedia is, that they expect us to publish an article about an institution which cannot even sort out a website or spell "instructor"? At least it has given me a smile, and I now know where to apply when I want a degree in Lorem ipsum. But, to be clear, even if the website were all glossy and finished and plausible-looking, we should not consider an article until there are references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, and I don't see any. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: as I expected, a Tineye search finds that the pictures of the happy smiling students and the "instuctors" are stock images such as this and this. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- This clearly fails the sourcing and significant coverage requirements for WP:ORG. And an alleged 30-year-old academic institution (or "one of India's leading group of institutions.") with an unfinished website and a Wikipedia editor with the same name as the school founder creates a lot of doubt. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I received on my talk page:

sir/madam the work in website is going on and it will be finished as soon as possible, then all the images of various schools will be uploaded. I request you sir to kindly wait for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsachan12 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sagarsachan12: I brought it here because that is were the discussion about the article deletion should be. I am not impressed, since even if the website was perfect and had a higher Alexa rank than Wikipedia itself, there still would not be any evidence out there that the Chitra group of Institutions is notable or even exists. (The website could pass, but that's another subject.) Tigraan (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dereboyu Avenue[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Rather standard shopping street. The Banner talk 11:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I fully understand why the article has been nominated for deletion, as it certainly did not appear to satisfy GTG in its previous shape. However, I am afraid the rationale for deletion seems rather superficial to me. Being "rather standard" is a subjective statement and certainly not a valid reason to delete provided that independent and reliable sources exist, and this avenue has been covered by numerous articles on the Turkish Cypriot national press, some of which I have already added and some that I will be adding shortly. Of course, one could say that as Northern Cyprus is a small country, and any avenue in the capital would be bound to have some coverage on the press, but the amount of publicity and discussion centered around this one certainly exceeds any of the others by far (for example, Girne Avenue, which is the main street of the walled city) and meets the relevant criteria, while other avenues are only subjects of brief announcements. While of course, when compared to major cities, the avenue would seem standard and even dull, the definition of "standard" varies according to the location; it is the heart of the modern part of the capital of a nation, and it is certainly not "standard" in that sense. --GGT (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More sources have been found and added to the article. By now, it must be clear that there are indeed a good number of articles in the Turkish Cypriot press beyond daily municipal announcements about the avenue, and that it does satisfy the GTG criteria due to the existence of multiple, reliable, independent sources with either the avenue being the main topic or receiving significant coverage. --GGT (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per sources provided, ~~I'm not entirely sure whether we need an article on what seems to be essentially a High Street but meh~~ sources have been added so can't really see the harm in keeping. –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have considered a possible merger to quarter articles, but the current material included would probably be too much for them, and it has room for more development. There seem to be many other precedents anyway. --GGT (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GGT - Ah looks like I learned something new - Never was aware we had articles on London High Streets, In that case I'm all for keeping :) –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, let us make a deal, GGT. When you make the article more neutral in style and tone, I will withdraw the nomination. The Banner talk 14:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Banner: Sure thing, but could you please specify/exemplify your concerns, by, for example, giving a sample sentence from the article? I have played a little with the ambiguous tone in the intro but I fail to see what more could be done. I also fail to see how neutrality in style and tone relates to notability (GNG) and the AfD, but I truly appreciate the time spent for critical input. --GGT (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To start with, the section beginning with The avenue has become a center of entertainment and nightlife since the 1990s. The Banner talk 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's wrong with that? Alakzi (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, I still fail to see anything. If it the phrase "center of entertainment" that sounds dubious, that is generally common in sources. Beyond that, I truly see nothing that would constitute a neutrality problem. And anyway, if there is such a problem, IMHO it would be more constructive to talk about it on the talk page with precise arguments and if necessary, tag the article, as stylistic problems are no grounds for deletion. --GGT (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 02:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further information regarding history from a reliable book about Nicosia has been added to the article. The source talks in depth about the avenue in the 1950s. --GGT (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Appatent the major street in a capital city. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 Hail to the King (Avenged Sevenfold album). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hail to the King Tour[edit]

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

No references included fails WP:TOUR entirely. Karst (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Hail to the King (Avenged Sevenfold album). Does fail WP:TOUR, but might be a helpful redirect to the album page. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 02:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as above. Alternatively, no objection to a merge/redirect. Neutrality^talk 00:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kasey Edwards[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to the proposed deletion:

• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Edwards and her books have been the feature of multiple periodical articles or reviews. For example: http://www.independent.ie/life/family/mothers-babies/fertility-born-in-the-nick-of-time-26744865.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1369338/What-you-told-just-year-left-conceive.html

Both of Edwards' books have been included in the collection of the National Library of Australia: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4497629 and http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4976783 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbscanlon (talk • contribs) 04:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbscanlon (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no opinion on this article or its success/failure in meeting Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, but think that inclusion in the NLA catalogue is not a claim for notability. As the national library, a copy of every work published in Australia is legally required to be submitted to the NLA (see Legal deposit). -- saberwyn 05:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Not notable in the slightest, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. The stories in the Independent and Daily Mail are primarily about her and satisfy our reliable sources guideline (okay, the Daily Mail only just), but they're both essentially about the one topic. Agree with User:Saberwyn above that merely being included in the NLA catalogue is not an indicator of any notability as self-publishing a pamphlet will essentially get you there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
keep leaving aside the irony in the fact that this self-absorbed Aussie first came to wide attention by writing a book (I added some of the press, profiles that the book - Published by Random House - generated to the page) about how she quit the rat race because wanted to leave career ambition behind, then further furthered her ambitious career by wrote another another that also garnered attention [35], and now appears ot be so determined ot leave ambition behind that she has written her own Wikipedia page. As I said, leaving all that behind, it does appear that she has garnered sufficient attention with her job-quitting and books to pass WP:GNG - with articles in the British, New Zealand, and Canadian as well as Australian press, moreover she keeps herself in the public eye by being a columnist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR. - RobBertholf (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Nakon 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CliSAP[edit]

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

Non-notable local association that fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wikicology, thanks for your feedback on the article about CliSAP. I understood that the relevance of this research association hasn't been stated and proved clear enough. Sorry for that. I tried to make it more visible by reorganizing the sources. In general, I can imagine that outside Germany a research joint venture on climate change does not seem to be a big deal. But in fact, the excellence initiative of the German Government has been investing a lot of money since the research funding project startet in 2005. As a result of a nation-wide competition there are Grad Schools, Universities as a whole for realizing innovative future concepts and Clusters of Excellence funded. Altogether 4.6 billion Euros are spent. To me, this looks relevant. What do you think? Every chosen project has already proved to be relevant in that context. As it is all about research within international networks, and the language of research is English, I definately do see the relevance in having an article about CliSAP in the English-speaking WP. Another thing I'd like to point out is that climate change is a key challenge of humanity and that information about research being done on that topic should be present in the web, and especially here. I would be happy to continue the discussion here. And I am grateful for help in improving the article. KlimaCampus (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, which I read as meaning that an article about climate change in the main press that includes ", scientist XXX from Clisap said", such as this one, is not enough at all. I could find no independant sources (ie, that are not publishing a press release). Tigraan (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Major interuniversity center of several major German institutions. I'm included to treat this in a separate article, since theres n single place to merge to. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG?. Let me also point out that the subject of the article is a research association. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep Here are the sources in the "External links" section of the article:
The third-to-last source provides nontrivial coverage of the subject (based on searching for "CliSAP"). I am not sure about the depth of coverage in the last two sources because I cannot read the language.
Per DGG, since this is a major university center of several major German institutions and there is no single place to merge, I'd prefer keeping the article over deletion.
Cunard (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill Linehan[edit]

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

Local elected person, does not meet the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, references do not constitute substantial or in-depth coverage by independent third parties. KDS4444^Talk 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Politicians by city

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While Boston is certainly large and prominent enough a city that its city councillors would satisfy WP:NPOL #3 if they were substantive and properly sourced, city council is not a level of office that confers an entitlement to keep an article that's this badly sourced and contains no real substance beyond an acknowledgement of his existence — it's a level of government where the substance and quality of sourcing constitutes the difference between a keep and a delete. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Linehan's name game". The Boston Globe. November 22, 2014.

Irons, Meghan E. and Ryan, Andrew. "Council head now says raise can wait: Before expected vote, Linehan cites ethics panel advice". The Boston Globe. October 7, 2014.

Ryan, Andrew. "Linehan proposes 29% raise for City Council". The Boston Globe. September 16, 2014.

"Linehan stirs up resentments with proposal to honor Bulger". The Boston Globe. August 15, 2014.

Baker, Billy. "Linehan to skip St. Patrick's parade: City Council leader invited to Ireland". The Boston Globe. February 13, 2014.

Irons, Meghan E. "Linehan elected council president". The Boston Globe. January 7, 2014.

Irons, Meghan E. "Linehan poised to take council reins: Appears to have secured backers". The Boston Globe. December 10, 2013.

Irons, Meghan E. "Linehan, Lee: The rematch: Incumbent city councilor talks up his accomplishments as a 'persistent' rival aims to finish what she began 2 years ago". The Boston Globe. October 24, 2013.

Irons, Meghan E. "Councilor Bill Linehan pulls out of District 2 debate". The Boston Globe. October 24, 2013.

Ryan, Andrew. "Song in back pocket, Linehan steps up: Councilor warily prepares for a St. Patrick's Day tradition in Boston". The Boston Globe. March 16, 2013.

Cassidy, Chris. "Linehan sings praises for St. Pat's Day fest". McClatchy - Tribune Business News . February 17, 2013.

Irons, Meghan E. "Linehan stands by his council redistricting plan". The Boston Globe. November 29, 2011.

MacQuarrie, Brian. "Linehan keeps District 2 seat in recount: But councilor's redistricting plan draws fire". The Boston Globe. November 24, 2011.

Wedge, Dave. "Bill Linehan, recount behind him, vows more focus on schools". McClatchy - Tribune Business News . November 24, 2011.

Ryan, Andrew. "Linehan is facing his first challenge". The Boston Globe. September 26, 2011.

Van Sack, Jessica. "Southie reigns supreme ; Linehan captures Kelly seat". Boston Herald. May 16, 2007.

Slack, Donovan. "Passoni, Linehan reshift focus - Begin groundwork for council seat". The Boston Globe. April 19, 2007.

Slack, Donovan. "Passoni, Linehan top race for council". The Boston Globe. April 18, 2007.

Johnson, O'Ryan. "Passoni, Linehan to battle for council seat". Boston Herald. April 18, 2007.

Keep Notable as member of Boston City Council. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep – Appears to meet WP:BASIC per the sources listed above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adelle McDonnell[edit]

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

Sourced exclusively to her radio show, a blog connected with that radio show and a Twitter account connected with the radio show. The only one that even works is the Twitter link. Greykit (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I could find one source to add, that was all. Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. The only thing I've found which comes across as even remotely reliable is this report from what appears to be a self-published website. Levdr1lp / talk 12:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 Today FM. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Eamon Lowe Show[edit]

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

Short-lived series sourced only to the radio station website. Most of these links don't even work. Greykit (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. I'm not finding coverage of any kind beyond YouTube videos uploaded by the show's host. All existing sources in article link to show's dead website. Levdr1lp / talk 11:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete (Weak) few citations other than own. @Rob talk 17:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Today FM, which broadcasted the show (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find coverage about the subject. But the history should be preserved under a redirect to Today FM so any useful content can be merged to Today FM.
No prejudice to undoing the redirect if editors find significant coverage about The Eamon Lowe Show in the future.
Cunard (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 incident at Echilitash border post[edit]

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

Currently doesn't meet notability criteria and I can't find more reliable secondary sources that could be added to make it meet WP:N Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Insufficient multiple reliable sources that give in-depth coverage of the event. Event has not received significant coverage long after the event took place thus fails WP:PERSISTENCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. We're not a newspaper. Could be adequately addressed in brief (sentence or two in a timeline article, perhaps). Neutrality^talk 00:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Nakon 03:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

40 Point Plan[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Admittedly the film did not reach broad distribution. It will not qualify as WP:NFILM. Because this is pseudo political in nature, it did receive coverage amongst the various special interest elements that are portions of its subject matter. There are currently 20 sources, many through the communication media of these special interest groups. While most are not mainstream media, they show significant discussion of the film to establish WP:GNG. Trackinfo (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Comment: most of the current sources appear unreliable or based upon press releases, but IF the any of the reviews or commentary listed HERE can be found and offered as citations, I'd suggest a weak keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't easy to find for sure, and the quote listed was not precise, but I have now posted the exact quotes and sources for the second and the fifth comment on that list into the article. Trackinfo (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. References appear to be unreliable, much of them blogspam. Neutrality^talk 00:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete (Weak) Logic introduced by Trackinfo and User:MichaelQSchmidt was compelling but additional sources are unreliable. There WP:MUST be more sources but I could not find them. @Rob talk 17:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delete. I was about to close this and realized it sounded eerily familiar. With thanks to Trackinfo and MQS, I do not consider the sourcing strong enough (in terms of reliability) to warrant a "keep" vote. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ankur Ghai[edit]

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

Listing for deletion due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Subject was a contestant on the reality television dance show Nach Baliye 6 and is married to actress Kanika Maheshwari, though notability is not inherited. Searching for sources WP:BEFORE this nomination resulted in passing mentions focusing on the subject's wife and minor tabloid coverage. Please contact me on my talk page if I have overlooked a source which would cause this to pass any relevant notability guideline. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benno Rothschild[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - just a resume without sources indicating notability. Neutrality^talk 00:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I have added several new references to the article including about one of his permanent exhibitions of Noah's Ark located at the Milwaukee Jewish Community Center. [36] and [37] I have also trimmed down sections in the article to make it not look like an advert or resume, but more like an article for a notable public and visual artist. I am sure there are more sources available if anyone cares to take the time to search about more of the various exhibitions. With sourcing from multiple sources this article subject has crossed the threshold of notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment WordSeventeen: Recommend removing the sections which are not backed by citations such as Volunteer Experience and adding citations to Publications section. If this looks like less like a resume I would vote to Provisional Keep. @Rob talk 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The artist does not meet the requirement of works in major public collections, Nor has there been substantial critical comment. What the article does have is an excess of self-ppromotionalism, over-extended listing of minor events in his CV, and the general impression of autobiography. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marc Lobliner[edit]

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

Unreliable and PR sources only; apparently a promotional article. Books are claimed, but none of them is even in Worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and thank you for your interest in the article; I've cited several magazines that are established publications in regards to bodybuilding such as Muscle And Fitness and Bodybuilding.com, can you please advise on how to make the article better? I do not understand what you mean by "Promotional Article"? As for the books, you are correct they are books that were distributed digitally only, should I go ahead and edit those out? Cada mori (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ref 2 is an author blurb he wrote himself in the first person, Ref. 3 is an advertisement for his program, complete with product listings, Ref 4 is a list of results that does not mention him, Ref. 5 is a publicity blurb. Ref 1. is the only even conceivably usable source at all, but it's an interview where he says whatever he wants to, which is straight PR. The refs considered all in all are promotional refs that prove this a promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Cada mori: The notability of the subject needs to be demonstrated through the provision of independent, third-party reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Specific criteria can be reviewed at WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Please feel free to list such sources here for consideration by Wikipedia editors. Thanks. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Unvarnished WP:ADMASQ. Pax 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Effort put into trying to understand GNG, but unfortunately, the quality of the sources is lacking. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I wonder whether it was really worth a second relisting. No reliable sources = no sources. Tigraan (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Genis[edit]

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

No indication of notability; the only references that aren't by Genis himself are opinion pieces by personal acquaintances. Even if his friends write columns for The New Yorker, they still don't become secondary sources about Genis. My own searches didn't turn up anything useful beyond some local coverage of Genis' arrest in 2003. Huon (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article/podcast about Daniel Genis on NPR: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/18/393832866/released-from-prison-apologetic-bandit-writes-about-life-inside Not written by a friend as far as I can tell. Adilawar (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Lacks the multiple independent sources we generally require to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Minimal sourcing, does not feel notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Delete Not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 Cetacean intelligence#Complex play. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bow riding[edit]

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

No references; not enough content to warrant an article. Liam987 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep or merge (though I'm not sure where to put it). There are tons of hits on this and it appears all over the place in the scholarly literature. It's simply a stub that has never been fleshed out. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only two article namespace pages link to it: Cetacean intelligence and Long-beaked common dolphin. It's absolutely a term that's mentioned in publications, but it's no more than that: a term. There's not enough information on the subject to fill an article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's not even anything to merge: Cetacean intelligence#Complex play has as much information on bow riding as the article itself does. Liam987 (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete : Yes, of course such behaviour should be mentioned in the article on dolphins (etc.); but to separate it out like this almost guarantees it will not be read. If it simply duplicates as per Liam987, then delete anyway. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 04:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Cetacean intelligence#Complex play, where it is mentioned. The phenomenon is obviously verifiable in many sources; our article on dolphins has a dolphin bow riding as its lede picture. GScholar shows 607 hits for "bow riding". So deletion is out of the question. Until someone gathers the reliable sources to write a solid article on this topic, redirecting to Cetacean intelligence#Complex play, where it is mentioned, seems the best course. I'll also note that there is also a form of human bow riding, (riding on the bow of a boat) that is usually dangerous and illegal. --Mark viking (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be good with this redirect. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Subject of article appears to have met notability requirements during the course of the AfD debate. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sebastian Dalgaard[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on speculation as to future appearances, which is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep - Just made his debut for OKC tonight so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - unnecessary nomination that completely defies WP:COMMONSENSE. If nominator really felt article shouldn't be here yet, they could have simply moved it to DraftSpace. This player has, as far as I can tell, played every minute of Oklahoma City preseason, and has been scoring goals. There's no question that he won't be in the starting line-up when the season starts in the few days. While with some of these recent nominations of USL players, it's somewhat questionable how long before they'll make a fully professional start. In this case however, short of death or injury, it's going to be 7 PM Central Daylight Time on March 28. So perhaps any closing admins can simply hold this open for a couple of extra days until 7:01 PM Central Daylight Time on March 28 before wasting our time moving it to Draft Space. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your argument completely defies WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it doesn't. WP:CRYSTAL notes that Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In this case we have a player who as far as I can tell has played every minute of the preseason and is scoring goals. It's almost certain that he will be in the opening day line-up and that event would be notable—as such WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. As this AFD shouldn't normally close until March 26, and the season starts March 28, it's entirely reasonable to simply hold open the AFD for a few extra hours to ensure that he is in the line-up. Your argument completely defies WP:COMMONSENSE, and you seem to be trying to enforce a non-existent rule. Nfitz (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL also says It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. So yes your argument does violate the guideline and it also violates WP:OR. The football project does not keep articles in anticipation of notability. It's whether or not the player is notable at present time. And this player is not notable. – Michael (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have inserted no text in an article that constitutes WP:OR. Go read WP:OR it states that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. There is no content in that article, nor has there ever been, that says he is starting. There has never been a violation of WP:OR and shame on you for suggesting otherwise! To suggest that I've violated WP:OR is a violation of WP:AGF! I'm merely suggesting that we delay closing the AFD for a few hours because it's blatantly obvious that this player will be either starting on March 28th. Also you have commented that WP:CRYSTAL also says It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. I have no idea why you are commenting about this, because there is not one word in the article that this applies to. I suggest that you focus on the article here, and apply WP:COMMONSENSE rather than making up untruths about what is in the article! Nfitz (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether or not WP:CRYSTALL applies here is a moot point, because WP:CONSENSUS very clearly does. This is a perennial issue and has always been decided the same way. The inadmissibility of speculation as to future appearances as a source of notability is one the strongest and long standing consensuses concerning the notability of footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the relevance of WP:CONSENSUS to my request to wait until 7 PM Central Daylight Time on March 28 to close this discussion, because it was very clear that Dalgaard would be in the starting line-up. I do apologize though, as they don't appear to have started until 7:07 pm. Surely a request to wait a few extra hours to close the AFD is only WP:COMMONSENSE given that it saved us the trouble of undeleting this. What I don't get is why we waste our time deleting a player who very clearly is part of the first team days before the season starts instead of applying WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep since he now meets NFOOTBALL. That was a big ol waste of time.Cptnono (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL and has now played in fully professional league .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QualityGate[edit]

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

Of the ten references, nine are documents authored by the developers. The tenth is a paper defining the term "code smell", and does not mention the article's subject at all. I couldn't find any reliable sources covering the subject in depth. Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:COMPANY. no coverage by independed soures to establish notability Krano (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QualityGate article correction I have deleted the 10th paper (code smell) and I have expanded the list of references, so it has 11 general reference now. I have changed the picture too, which has made by me. RitaBartfai87 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'm afraid your changes haven't addressed any of the problems raised in this nomination. (In fact, it could be argued that they've made it worse, since now all the references are to documents authored by the developers.) In order for this article to be kept you need to show that QualityGate has been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple sources entirely unaffiliated with the developers. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability for further details on the sort of sourcing we require. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Seems like pure advertising. Tolstoyan at Heart (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QualityGate article correction round 2
- I've deleted some of the references, but the others I think should be ok:
  - Tibor Bakota, Péter Hegedűs, István Siket, Gergely Ladányi, Rudolf Ferenc: "QualityGate SourceAudit: A Tool for Assessing the Technical Quality of Software": this paper was presented in a conference in Belgium, so it should be a reliable source.
  - http://www.qatestingtools.com/frontendart/quality-gate This is an indepedent resource, not made by the authors.
  - http://www.gitex.com/page.cfm/Action=library/libID=16/libEntryID=1454 This is also an indepedent source, not a paper written by the authors.
  - http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~beszedes/research/SED-TR2014-001-LOC.pdf: Althought it's made by the authors, this paper is free, so any wiki user can read it, which could be useful.
- And a question: can I refer to Hungarian online journal articles, or it has to be written in English?
- Sorry for these problems, but this is my first article, so I'm a very beginner in editing wiki pages. RitaBartfai87 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rita, there was no need to delete any of the references; in many cases it is acceptable to use primary sources to establish certain facts about a subject. The problem is that such references cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic, which is a prerequisite for having a Wikipedia article in the first place.

With respect to the specific references you list above, I'm afraid you overlooked the part where I said that the sources need to be "entirely unaffiliated" with the developers. This means that the articles and wikis produced by the developers are disqualified, even if they were published by a third party or include third-party contributors. Regarding the GITEX and QA Testing Tools sites, you are apparently conflating the publisher and the authors. The publishers of those sites may be independent of the developers, but the text on the pages you link to is word-for-word advertising copy from the QualityGate website. GITEX is a trade fair; it doesn't write its own copy for its participating vendors. QA Testing Tools is a software directory which also doesn't employ its own writers; vendors submit their own software descriptions. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I would add to the previous reasons that conferences made by people affiliated with a company/product/etc. do not magically become secondary sources because some third party pays for them. However, the author made a real effort to provide sources, so he should not be bitten too hard. Please also note that the use of non-English sources is acceptable if needed, although I personally disagree with that guideline. Tigraan (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The sources provided do appear to be primary upon examination. Insufficient coverage (no coverage that I could find) in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Nakon 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arnold H. Green[edit]

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

Person fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMICS. Additionally page has no citations at all. I attempted to address this issues on talk page with no one commenting. If someone can address this issue, I would be more than happy to withdraw nomination.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep To claim there were no sources at the time of nomination is a major exaggeration. The article cited an LA Times article that made significant mention of Green. I have added others. His articles have clearly had influence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- CMT - One article which mentions him in passing dose not make him notable per WP:NACADEMICS. To be notable he must have "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". and "received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." The LA Times article only mentions in one paragraph that he is a a history professor at BYU and he wrote a 2001 essay on Muslims and Mormons.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 15:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- The number of publications mentioned in the article does not inspire me with confidence, but I am reluctant to vote on LDS issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This article should likely be moved to Draft space if there is work planned on it. If not count me as a Delete. Jerodlycett (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 01:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete with allowance that it can be recreated in Draft space. Jerodlycett (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I looked at the LA Times article and I would not call its mention of Green significant. There were a few sentences (so it's not outright trivial either), but the article was not about Green. He and his work were only briefly mentioned. Several such pieces would "add up", but I don't think one is enough. Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Keep Inadequate article for notable professor. He's been professor and chair of the history department at a major research university, and that indicates his peers in the academic world consider human expert in his field. His The Tunisian Ulama 1873-1915: Social Structure and Response to Ideological Currents. Leiden: Brill, 1978. by the major europeanacademic publisher in the field is in almost 200 libraries,significant for this subject. It's even been translated into Arabic as ‏العلماء التونسيون /‏ (al-ʻUlamāʼ al-Tūnisīyūn) DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per logic by User:DGG. @Rob talk 17:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. essentially promotionalism. There might be an opportunity for a nonpromotional article,b but it would mean starting over DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ReNewIT[edit]

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

A computer recycling company that appears to have generated some press for itself through a thorough media campaign, but does not, in the end, appear all that notable. All of the citations arise from stories that the company itself either wrote, or generated through press releases. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete - spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep | Rewrite Completely The Article clearly does qualify BLP. The article can be rewritten in a better way out. Dormantos (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete as clear spam/advertising. If it fails speedy deletion, then delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy as above. Neutrality^talk 00:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nikolai Laursen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played for Brondby in the Danish Cup. However, since the match in question was a against a lower non-fully-pro-league club, it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your point, and thats not true. Im from Denmark, and I do know danish football very well. The club became a professional club in the winter 2014, when the old Brøndby IF sportschef Ole Bjur came to the club, after he was fired in BIF because of due to economic reasons. He invested money, and gave all of the players in the squad new professional contracts.You can read about it on the source, i had linked.^[1]

^ Ole Bjur - Her er folkene bag genrejsningen af Fremad Amager

But back to the topic. I think that is a notable article, because he began training with the first team squad when he was only 15 years old, and got his debut when he was 16 years old. Sorry, if my english isn't the best. Fodbold-fan (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen many other articles with footballers, who was written about, just when they got debut for the first team even if it was in a cup match, so i do not understand why this is a problem. I would agree, if it was a friendly match or something like that. But it was in a cup match, against a team, who once played in the Danish Superliga.

Let me start by saying that other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Each article is to evaluated on its on merits. I have not seen the other articles you refer to, but there is a distinct possibility that some of them should have been deleted as well. The notability issue here stems from point 2 of WP:NFOOTBALL which says Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. In the case of Denmark this means a match in the Superliga (see WP:FPL for details). While not technically included in the wording of the guideline, there is a long standing consensus that the guideline also applies to competitive matches between clubs that at the time played in fully pro leagues. The idea being that it would be pretty silly to have a match between say Brondby and Randers to confer notability in one competition, but not in another later the same season. Deletion discussions on: Edson Almeida, Milancy Khongstia, Alexandru Chiriță, and Jamie Harney are recent examples of this rule being applied both the keep articles that meet its criteria and delete articles that don't. This article falls into the latter category. Since his cup appearance was against Fremad Amager, who do not currently play in the Superliga, neither the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline nor the cup exception applies. I hope that makes things more clear. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do stil understand your point, but i have to maintain, that he has played for the first team and played a official match for the first team. It wasn't a friendly match, so you can say what you want, its stil a professional and official debut match that he did play. He has also played several matches for the youth national teams of Denmark. I can see, that those other players you linked haven't played any nt games. He still has played this official match for Brøndby IF, and im sure, that it isn't the last one, he is a huge talent in Denmark. If we delete it, it will be 100% sure, that he will be created again soon. I think that he will get many matches in the next year. Or probably be loaned out. Fodbold-fan (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. His cupappearance for Brondby was not in a match featuring two teams from FULLY professional leagues. Regardless of his talent and whether he may or may not play in future, currently he does not satisfy any guideline for notability. Fenix down (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to Draftspace - he's sitting on the bench for fully professional matches, so he's close. Likely will be notable soon, so let's put the article in draft space where it can be prepared and moved over when he makes a fully professional start (against a fully professional squad). Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Application of NFOOTBALL is incredibly nitpicky in this case. It is close enough and even arguing about it is a waste of time.Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This application is a fairly WP:NSPORT is a fairly well-established consensus, and exists for a reason. The early rounds of national cup competitions where non-FPL clubs can play against FPL clubs generally receive far less coverage than the later rounds and are frequently used to test out young players who are by no means ready to play in a league setting yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Not seeing the in-depth, significant coverage... Neutrality^talk 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 06:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correx[edit]

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

Non notable branded corrugated plastic - fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No reason to thing sufficiently notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any evidence that correx is notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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) 06:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boomtown Boulder[edit]

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

I'm not necessarily saying it should be deleted, but I think it should be looked at. It's questionable whether this meets notability guidelines at WP:CORP. Coverage does not appear to be significant in independent media. Also, there is some evidence that employees of the company are the primary authors, and that it reads like an WP:ADVERT. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There is an RM on this article at: Talk:Boomtown_Boulder#Requested_move_11_March_2015 and most coverage is related to Boomtown Accelerator not Boomtown Boulder. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The only notable reference is Advertising Age. It announces the beginning of a business. Time will tell if it achieves notability, but for now it lacks notability. Tapered (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as above. OK to mention in other relevant articles (Boulder, Colorado, Alex Bogusky), but not independently notable. Neutrality^talk 00:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. There hasn't been enough reliable coverage to establish notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sachin G Lokapure[edit]

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

Unotable person who keeps on getting the prod removed, can't find much notability Wgolf (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any notability. Reads like an autobiography of a person who believes being awarded a patent is sufficient notability to be included here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the person has a patent for a device that the article doesn't explain what it does. That's not notable enough, unless their alledged success has good secondary sourcing. As a sidenote, I also added WP:BLPPROD to the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joseph2302-it was a blp prod but I had to change it to a afd after the creator kept on removing it.Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Mentions in academic writing and journals only don't cut it for notability. Optakeover ^(Talk) 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I can't find much on duckduckgo about this person other than they have a patent. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Blatant attempt at self-promotion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above no notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No signs of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow delete - that this AfD was relisted is a wonder to my eyes. Tigraan (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete - for reasons mentioned above BakerStMD T|C 19:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. The discussion has received adequate participation, and no consensus has emerged herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a scientist[edit]

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

Article violates WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. Article is a partisan attempt to take a factual admission and inject pov. The Colbert Report was an excellent show, but it was a comedy talk show and I find it unlikely that anyone who has actually seen it could truthfully consider one of Stephen's (albeit hilarious) segments as meeting WP:RS. "I'm not a scientist" isn't a 'phrase'. It's a fact. These politicians, like nearly every politician in congress, are not scientists. Over 95% of congress (yes, including Democrats) *should* be saying "I'm not a scientist", because it's the truth. "I'm not a scientist" violates WP:Neologism. It being referred to as a 'catchphrase' in an article or two, nor its use by 4 people, doesn't make it widely used.

At the most, the specific claims made by each individual politician should be in their respective articles. Including it here only serves as an attempt to associate claims (without providing any context for the comments) of a few people to a wider group. ― Padenton |☎ 18:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related: Article was previously nominated for and declined for CSD (WP:G10) [38]. ― Padenton |☎ 19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article. Secondary sources have reported on the topic, and we quote the secondary sources; this is exactly how neologisms get articles on Wikipedia. There is no rule against their inclusion, and we only delete non-notable neologisms. Whether coverage of the phrase is fair or not isn't the point. Significant coverage in reliable sources is the issue at hand. If the article isn't neutral, then it can be fixed through normal editing. It sounds like you disagree with the conclusions of the sources. If so, maybe you should write a blog post. 13:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaRobotPirate (talk • contribs)
Comment. I don't care about the sources. My issue here is about this absurd article which cannot possibly be made into anything encyclopedic, and its only possible purpose is as a PoV fork with the same level of integrity as the memes that come through my Facebook news feed. I already suggested by all means putting criticisms in each of the named politicians (for which there are WP:RS available) regarding these comments, and the specific claims that each of them made. But of course, then WP editors don't get to malign the entire Republican Party through the use of an association fallacy.― Padenton |☎ 16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Not a dictionary, etc. This really does not appear to be a topic at all, it's just a phrase that has been used by various people. Strictly speaking, it's not a neologism, because it doesn't mean anything different from what the words mean naturally. It (I mean the literal title "I'm not a scientist") also is not a fact, any more than "I am a cat lover" is a fact, and in fact this really isn't anything at all. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – This will never be anything other than a vehicle for heaping (richly deserved) ridicule on certain Republican politicians. It passes GNG with flying colors, but it's just not an encyclopedic topic. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Margin1522: See Wikipedia:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - That's for !votes without a reason. I've given a reason. Can you or anyone else suggest some way that this article could be rewritten from a neutral point of view, without losing the crucial point, namely that it is strange for a politician to make this innocuous statement in a context that demands another kind of statement? Do we have articles about statements that are notable because they are inappropriate to their context? – Margin1522 (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article is basically a WP:COATRACK for political criticism. Just because it has been occasionally noted in reliable sources that some politicians have mocked other politicians for using this phrase, I don't think that makes it a notable phrase or an encyclopedic topic. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The phrase isn't terribly notable (not like Let there be light or Nation of shopkeepers) and the article is a WP:COATRACK. -- 120.17.33.20 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is a well known phrase. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep on the basis of the following.
- Jonathan Chait, Why Do Republicans Always Say ‘I’m Not a Scientist’?, New York, May 30, 2014.
- Coral Davenport, Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They’re Not Scientists, New York Times, Oct. 30, 2014.
- Suzanne Goldenberg, Obama attacks Republican 'I am not a scientist' climate change denial in address, Guardian, Jan. 21, 2015.
- Rebecca Leber, Warning to the 2016 GOP Field: "I'm Not a Scientist" Is a Recipe for Disaster, New Republic, Jan. 30, 2015.
- Steve Benen, The GOP’s ‘not a scientist’ meme keeps spreading, MSNBC, Sept. 17, 2014.

These sources (some of which are indeed already cited in the article) seem to be to be sufficient to support notability. While I wouldn't object to a proper merge/redirect (to climate change denial, etc.) the content should be preserved. Neutrality^talk 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The phrase has been the subject of significant coverage, as noted by Neutrality, that goes beyond dictionary definitions to "include information on the social or historical significance of the term". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything that suggests significant coverage or anything even remotely close to "social or historical significance". It's simply not notable at this point. Deli nk (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Argument from ignorance, of which it is a fork. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment by nom (I'm in favor of Delete/Merge): @Bearian: Not appropriate. Argument from ignorance and other articles on Rhetological fallacies do include examples, but all examples are abstract and merely used to explain the concept. These are articles on philosophical concepts, to inject needless political issues is not appropriate. It's also not actually an example of an argument from ignorance, because it doesn't qualify as an argument in any of the sources in the article, nor the ones that Neutrality listed above. It's a Statement_(logic). And if you read the sources, the only conclusion that is ever drawn from this statement is that they are not qualified to debate climate change, etc. You may not like it, but it's not an argument, and it's not an example of Argument from ignorance, because not being a scientist is merely their response, not their reason for denying climate change.

As I suggested in my nomination, the appropriate handling of this is that the specific comments by each politician should be placed on the article about that politician, without attempting to ascribe the words of one politician to others. I would also not be opposed to the content being moved to climate change denial, provided that it is not a Straw man as it is in this disgusting article, attempting to put the words of a small handful of politicians into the mouths of many. ― Padenton |☎ 21:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Padenton, I'd rather keep it than delete it outright. As noted above, there is substantial coverage in several reliable sources, so it is therefore a notable topic, thus I'd keep the facts; the problem is that the current article gives undue weight and it is forked away from a neutral article. I certainly do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bearian: It does not seem like you read what I wrote. I'm going to wait until you have. ― Padenton |☎ 15:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then why do they say such words? What is the point or argument they are trying to make? Bearian (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bearian: They aren't making an argument or a point by saying "I'm not a scientist", at least not in the articles I've read and interviews I've seen. They say the words because they are true, they're politicians, not scientific experts. An argument generally follows in the interviews, for example in [39], it quotes Boehner as saying “I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change. But I am astute enough to understand that every proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs.” The argument here isn't that the science over climate change is incorrect, false, a hoax, whatever. The argument in this quote is something along the lines of "a proposal to deal with climate change shouldn't be one that hurts the economy and American jobs." "I'm not a scientist" isn't actually part of that argument (paraphrased or not), Boehner's conclusion isn't based on the premise of him not being a scientist, but based on the premise, true or not, that 'past proposals made by the admin. would have killed jobs and hurt the economy.' ― Padenton |☎ 22:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The news coverage is minimal and does not indicate any degree of notability or political significance - it is typical of a passing little political attack that never got much traction. The article, with its clear problems with POV, COATRACK, and FORK as noted several times above, comes across as a shallow attempt to make something out of a non-issue. The fact that the article must rely on references that are opinion pieces (from a single political perspective, at that) gives it away. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I can support merging this somewhere, but Argument from ignorance doesn't seem like an appropriate target to me. What does this have to do with not seeing kangaroos in the back seat of your car? This is definitely not a WP:content fork of that article; where does argument from ignorance mention climate science? This topic is far more notable than a substantial portion of Wikipedia's BLPs. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Just did a major rewrite. All the quotes were removed because they were criticisms of the Republicans and their phrase, which tilted the article to POV. The links to 'logical fallacy' pages have been deleted--they implied that the phrase was a logical fallacy. Readers can still connect to a page on fallacies from a link in the article itself. This article is noteworthy because the phrase has received extensive coverage in major media. Tapered (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep: I am convinced this is notable WP:WORDISSUBJECT, but the POV issue is huge and seemingly unsolvable. Basically, that line of defense is completely untenable (no, you are no scientist, but you are supposed to take decisions, so if you have no expertise yourself tell me where you take it from), as are many other politician cheap tricks ("I would not comment on that trial while it is underway, because I respect presumption of innocence"). It seems however that this line is disproportionately used by politicians from one side, so exposing it for the bollocks it is (as an article that is more than three sentences long is going to do) might be seen as political POV from the other side. Tigraan (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly illustrated by the sources. Everyking (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 05:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pass the ring[edit]

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

Single source that does not assert notability. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, not notable. Nakon 04:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep – The details vary, but passing a ring and then guessing who has it seems to be a popular game around the world. See [40] [41][42] [43][44] [45]. If we already have a game like this, could be merged. If it survives, should be added to Category:Children's games.– Margin1522 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Category:Children's games @Rob talk 17:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. consensus that there is no real evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crazy Domains[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG notability guidelines. Tmsevre1 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment [46], [47], [48]. JT_dale^Talk~ 07:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – just barely meets notability requirements. Needs improvement. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I don't think suffering a few power outages makes a company notable. They are quite frequent occurrences for web hosting companies. And just because they use a notable person (Pamela Anderson) in one of their advertisements, does not make a company notable. There is nothing else relevant about this run of the mill web hosting company.Tmsevre1 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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. Compelling arguments that the GNG is met are presented. Note that the article needs serious work--pruning and de-fluffing. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarence "Jeep" Jones[edit]

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

Subject of article does not appear to be notable according to the terms of WP:POLITICIAN. He was an appointed (not elected) deputy politician of a US city (not a state-wide office nor federal), and article references do not look like they qualify as independent third-party sources with editorial oversight. I was able to find one 4-paragraph article from Jet magazine from April 22, 1976 which mentions Jones becoming deputy mayor, but no discussion in wider media and nothing more in depth. KDS4444^Talk 23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:KDS4444, I completely understand your notion that deputy politicians of cities shouldn't qualify as being notable simply due to their political poisition. As the original creator of the article, I just want to mention some points that can hopefully contribute to the debate over the articles' deletion. First and foremost, the creation of this article is part of a class and I plan on contributing continuously to the page. I realize that as of now I rely heavily on primary sources and possibly shouldn't have gone live with the article, but there do exist independent third-party sources that cover Jeep Jones and his relevant importance to the city of Boston. In regards to April, 1976, the time of the school busing debate in Boston, Jones played a role in mediating tensions within the city. I've found a few published books thus far in a general search that mention his role in the racial issue, including Rebound!: Basketball, Busing, Larry Bird, and the Rebirth of Boston By Michael Connelly (2008) and The Soiling of Old Glory: The Story of a Photograph That Shocked America By Louis P Masur (2008). I really do appreciate your comment and concern as this is my first experience with the creation of an article. I request that this page be kept 'alive' until further, more in-depth edits can be added at which point I'd accept deletion if consensus dictates so. I do not ask that the "request for deletion" tag be removed, I just wanted to add my input to the talk page. Let me know what you're thinking about this! Thanks Matt rodgers2 (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving my response to article creator's talk page. KDS4444^Talk 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Jones does not pass any well defined notability guidelines. Local appointed officials are generally not notable in the grand scheme of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The article needs more references, and it needs to lose a few puffery terms like "outstanding". But he certainly looks notable to me. Granted, he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, but he almost certainly meets WP:GNG - among other things for being the first African-American to hold a number of city positions. Serving on the Boston Redevelopment Agency would not be notable by itself, but serving on it for more than 30 years and chairing it for 24 of them sounds a little more significant. The city thought he was notable enough to name a park after him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. I added a couple of references. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not notable to the point of being an article. Some articles might benefit from this information but I don't see this topic meeting GNG Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – Has received significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cowen, Peter A. "'Jeep' Jones quits as deputy mayor". The Boston Globe. November 21, 1980.

Jordan, Robert A. "'Deputy Mayor 'Jeep' Jones shows he's no 'yes' man for White". The Boston Globe. June 22, 1977.

Haynes, Walter and Rogers, David. "Jones expected to be deputy mayor". The Boston Globe. March 25 1976.

Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources:
Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
The sources listed above cannot be rejected "just because they are hard or costly to access" (per the policy I quoted above).
Cunard (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Deputy major is not notable, so the article are no t significant. This is essentially political promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: That's kind of an irrelevant argument, actually - because nobody has claimed that deputy mayors are notable, or that this subject is notable because he was deputy mayor. We all agree that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. The discussion here is whether he meets the more general notability standard, WP:GNG, by having received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. (I am also impressed by the city naming a park after him. Apparently the city of Boston thought he was notable.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- In full disclosure, I'm assisting with the class in which this student is participating. I can comment re: political promotionalism: the subject of this article is not involved with the creation of this article. In addition, WP:NRVE states reliable citations only need to exist, even if they haven't made it into the article yet. (Obviously, getting them into the article is the best option.) And, thanks to KDS4444 and MelanieN for your many comments and help here and elsewhere! AmandaRR123 (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This sounds great, AmandaRR123. And that reliable citations exist is good to hear! But that claim, without actual supporting evidence, doesn't allow anyone to WP:VERIFY it or independently assess the subject's notability. The terms of article creation are quite clear: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable". Also, from WP:NRVE: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged [as it has here], merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Hirolovesswords has offered a list of sources which might provide evidence of notability. The sources look reliable (The Boston Globe is a newspaper with sufficient distribution and editorial oversight), but with only the limited information so far provided (i.e, with no page numbers and ideally some links to the archives of the newspaper itself) and without including them in the article to know what parts of it are supported by which citations, we cannot tell if this coverage is anything more than WP:ROUTINE which would not be evidence of notability. I am willing to concede that the article's subject might, in fact, be a notable politician... I am only asking for the article to meet the basic standards for inclusion on Wikipedia, one of which is evidence of notability as demonstrated by the inclusion of multiple independent reliable sources so that this can be verified. --KDS4444^Talk 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear you on not being able to see these historical newspaper sources! It's one of the most frustrating things, working with these historical topics -- not being able to easily share these sources. I'm adding a few citations as "further reading" linking to the Globe archival snippet online. Not perfect, but gives more of a sense of the scope of coverage? AmandaRR123 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AmandaRR123: The Boston Globe provides on-line access to all of its articles dating back to 1872, with a search page located here. We don't need to be able to read the full article, we just need to see a link that points to it— the articles you are referring to must also exist in the electronic archive, yes? Because then all you need to do is fill out a newspaper citation template located here and use the URL of the electronically archived page to fill in the URL field, and ta da! Citation complete! KDS4444^Talk 05:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The existence of the second source provided by Hirolovesswords can be verified by clicking on https://secure.pqarchiver.com/boston/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=Deputy+Mayor+%27Jeep%27+Jones+shows+he%27s+no+%27yes%27+man+for+White&type=historic&sortby=RELEVANCE&datetype=0&frommonth=03&fromday=04&fromyear=1872&tomonth=12&today=31&toyear=1979&By=&Title=. But the only information available is:

Deputy Mayor 'Jeep' Jones shows he's no 'yes' man for White
Jordan, Robert; Boston Globe (1960-1983); (Jun 22, 1977), p. 19.

The title of this article indicates that it is nontrivial coverage about the subject (that he is not a "yes" man).

Cunard (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep In addition to The Boston Globe articles listed above by Hirolovesswords, here is an article from the Boston Business Journal that is already in the Wikipedia article:
1. Douglas, Craig (September 13, 2013). "BRA board chairman "Jeep" Jones to retire after 32 years". Boston Business Journal. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Clarence "Jeep" Jones to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider this article from the Boston Globe, June 9, 2005: Peabody to name new city clerk. It reads, "The Peabody City Council at its meeting tonight is expected to select a successor to City Clerk Natalie Maga, who is retiring effective July 1. Maga has been clerk since 1977." That is the entire article. Although it comes from a well-known and highly reliable source, it does not make either Natalie Maga nor her successor notable because it is routine information akin to a marriage announcement or an obituary. Every city in the U.S. likely makes announcements when a city official retires or is hired, but that does not make the subject notable. What we need in order to retain this particular article is something that provides in-depth coverage— not just a retirement notice, no matter how reliable the source. — KDS4444^Talk 05:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was the one who suggested to AmandaRR that if there wasn't currently time or opportunity to cite additional sources in the text, they could be listed as "Further Reading" so that they can be evaluated for purposes of this AfD. These are not all "routine announcements"; in fact, considering the non-notable nature of his deputy mayor position, he got a surprising amount of coverage during his time at city hall. And it's not just a matter of counting the sources; it's also what they SAY about him. Examples already in the article: the Business Journal article says he was "a central figure in the building renaissance that has transformed Boston’s skyline." The book Rebound describes him as one of the city's "most prominent black leaders."[49] IMO the newspaper and other citations currently in the article add up to GNG, both in number and in content. --MelanieN (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. The quotes about him in books and major newspapers strongly demonstrate that he is notable. That Boston named a park about him also strongly indicates that he is notable. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Pretty clearly a delete if we stick to the POLITICIAN high bar (insufficient elected office). However, the fact that he is the namesake of a Boston park tips me the other way in this specific instance. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 do not see a redirect in the history but no prejudice against creation of a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yook Sungjae (Singer)[edit]

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

Autobio, unotable, which btw no need for a redirect as Yook Sungjae already goes to that band Wgolf (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. This singer has already been deleted through AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yook Sungjae), so the article shouldn't have been recreated. Is it too late for speedy deletion? Random86 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment-Didn't realize that part-I just took the singer off and saw that it was a redirect already. Wgolf (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, since most of the sources are either unreliable for one reason or another, or cover the singer solely in the context of the band. I'd argue for a redirect, but one already exists under Yook Sungjae. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 only comments that were substantiated within policy were made by DGG. Nakon 21:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aaronia[edit]

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

I do not see how this company has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Aaronia is a TECHNOLOGY company so why should it need to have "effects on culture"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunlight123 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me expand that to "...significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education..." What I am saying is, why is this company so special? There are millions of companies. Why does this one deserve an article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Ah, OK. So why are they special? I think they made a lot of inventions we technical guys now use in daily live e.g. they invented the "hand held spectrum analyzer" (before we needed to carry heavy and bulky ultra high cost units) and in 2015 they invented the first (and only) RF video camera. Boy, i think THAT is something.

They are also great in antenna techniques: They invented a lot of unique antennas (look at the LPDAs and magnetic antennas they offer) and push the "state of the art" every year with new exiting stuff so far not know on the market.

Now, so far my opinion for the "whats so special" about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunlight123 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and not to forget: They invented the first Polyphase REALTIME spectrum analyzer in a hand held form factor. That for sure should be another "significant or demonstrable effect" in "science" and "technlogy".

— Sunlight123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's actually quite a lot. Maybe they are notable. By the way, do you work for them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but we own two of there units :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunlight123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW: I added some References to the Aaronia page. I think this should add more value and content to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunlight123 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: One of the major RF/EMC antenna and analyzer brands. [[50]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.213.50 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— 217.6.213.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: Notable tech company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.103.143 (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— 80.187.103.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DELETE Please note that all the "keep" recommendations are in effect, "They're important keep them," without one shred of backing evidence. The references are almost exclusively technical papers which say very little about Aaronia. No notable second of third party references documenting notability.

Keep: Look at the updated Aaronia Wiki page for a lot of second or third party references.

References[edit]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10]

^ Quboa, K.M. "Wireless communication and environmental health safety standards", IEEE, Belgrade, Serbia, 22 November 2011, Print ISBN 978-1-4577-1499-3.
^ South Pole Telescope "Aaronia Antenne Technique at South Pole Telescope Station", South Pole Telescope, South Pole, 26 December 2011.
^ Udora N. Nwawelu , Anthony N. Nzeako , Mamilus A. Ahaneku "The Limitations of Campus Wireless Networks: A Case Study of University of Nigeria, Nsukka", IOSR Journal of Applied Physics, p-ISSN: 2168-4936, e-ISSN: 2168-4944, 2012.
^ Grayver, Eugene "Implementing Software Defined Radio", Axel Springer AG, Manhattan Beach, USA, Print ISBN 978-1-4419-9331-1, 2013.
^ Bara’u Gafai Najashi, Feng Wenjiang, Choiabu Kadri "An Insight into Spectrum Occupancy in Nigeria", IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues,, ISSN (Print): 1694-0784 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0814, 1 January 2013.
^ Ken, Conklin "Aaronia AG presents the worlds first real time handheld spectrum analyzer", Microwave Yournal, Norwood, USA, 18 September 2013.
^ Aaron Chippendale, Douglas Hayman, Douglas Hayman, Stuart Hay " Measuring Noise Temperatures of Phased-Array Antennas for Astronomy at CSIRO", CSIRO, Australia, 01 January 2014.
^ Lalrinthara Pachuau, Zaithanzauva Pachuau "Study of Cell Tower Radiation and its Health Hazards on human body", IOSR Journal of Applied Physics, e-ISSN: 2278-4861, 1 January 2014.
^ Teti, Zubaidah " Three-Dimensional Mapping of Static Magnetic Fields over a Semi Anechoic Chamber", EMTech, University of Lombok, Lombok, Indonesia, 03 September 2014.
^ Nicole, Wörner "Aaronia AG presents the worlds first real time RF/EMC camera", Elektroniknet, Haar, Germany, 11 March 2015.

Comment Yep. I looked. Aaronia is tangential in several of the references. Only 2 of the references can be considered reliable articles that might meet WP:NOTE criteria. I invite the admins, or whoever makes the choices on these questions, to look through the refs and decide accordingly. Again, most of the "keeps" have, for practical purposes, said, "I know, listen to me." Tapered (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 09:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: One of the leading RF companys. Tons of google pictures, docs, 2nd and third party references e.g.

— 91.9.153.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Delete It is possible that some of the products are notable, but it can't be told from this article, which is a product catalog. No information about size of the firm, or market share. No objection to starting over. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Product catalog is shown clearly on the Wikipage.

"No information about size of the firm, or market share." This should be of no relevance for keep or delete but you are free to add those information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.110.234 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 close. AfD is for articles that should be deleted. If you think this should be merged somewhere or other this is the wrong place to discuss it. Michig (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mind Pool[edit]

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

Novel that has been long tagged for notability, from the looks of it-it can be merged into either the author or the previous book it is based off of Wgolf (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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.