< 27 March	29 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 speedy deleted per issues with its author, rendering this open AFD is moot. I've redirected as suggested below to the one place where it has context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Pyaar Tumhara[edit]

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

Non notable song, possible copyright issues here. Wgolf (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to film article Anand Ashram where in has context. That solves any concern with notability or copyvio and serves our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scandal (Japanese band). (Nom should've redirected himself, Had he been reverted the next step would be to discuss it .....) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna Ono[edit]

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

The article fails WP:MUSICBIO should be redirected to Scandal (Japanese band) Karlhard (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So why didn't you just redirect it? Unless you do that and it's reverted it doesn't really need to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussing with others contributors I can't make any changes. --Karlhard (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any potential redirect should, if likely to be controversial, be discussed on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – to Scandal (Japanese band). Doesn't seem to be notable outside the band. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect JAWP's is a redirect to a section in ja:SCANDAL (日本のバンド) (Scandal (Japanese band)). The other mention is in ja:バックダンサーズ! (Backdancers!) in the cast (minor character?). No sources outside of the band context. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Scandal (Japanese band). Insufficient independent notability at this stage. --DAJF (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per issues with its author. If a neutral editor wishes to recreate it and properly source it, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umeed[edit]

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

Non notable film with only unreliable refs Wgolf (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Under its IMDB title of Ummeed this 53-year-old, waaaay pre-internet film is not unsourcable, appears to be a significant part of a notable's career,[1][2] and has made it into the enduring record. Rather than judge this brand new article on how it looks, I'll choose to await input from Hind-reading Wikipedians able to gauge its notability to Hindi cinema. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-creator has been banned as a sockpuppet. Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author. If an experienced editor wishes to recreate and properly source it, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Ka Chor[edit]

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

Non notable film with only unreliable refs Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This 53-year-old, waaaaaay pre-internet Hindi film is not entirely unsourcable, seems a significant part of a notable's career,[3], and is part of the enduring record, so I'll choose to not judge this brand new stub on current state and prefer to await input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author. It a neutral editor wishes to recreate and properly source this topic, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pehli Raat[edit]

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

Non notable film with only unreliable sources Wgolf (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Another nomination of a another new stub article on a 56-year-old, waaaay pre-internet Hindi film. It's not unsourable, appears to be considered a significant part of a notable's career,[4] and has made it into the enduring record of Hindi cinema. I'll choose to not judge it upon current state and instead await input from Hind-reading Wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author. AFD is rendered moot. If a neutral editor wishes to recreate an article on this topic, ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpana (1960 film)[edit]

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

Film I can't find any notability for Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: [5]

Keep per meeting WP:NF. For 50-year-old pre-internet Hindi films I urge the nominator to be a bit more creative in his searches. It is often learned that even weak new stubs are not unsourcable, and that these films have become part of the enduring historic record for early Hindi cinema.[6] Like for instance, when a senior actor's or filmmaker's career is discussed, and media will include information about earlier significant works.[7][8][9][10] No, these old films will not have the coverage of some modern Western blockbuster... but they are suitable stubs. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per issues with its author, thus rendering an open AFD as moot. I am redirecting the title to film article Yaadon Ki Baraat, as the one place where this has sourcable context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Soni Meri Tamanna[edit]

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

Non notable song Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep per WP:NSONG and add available sources,[11][12][13] or redirect to film article Yaadon Ki Baraat. Poor WP:BEFORE is almost no BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus for deletion Nakon 21:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Stewart (British politician)[edit]

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

The article may not be notable and has been tagged as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregKaye (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. President of the NUS is a significant position in Britain. No good reason given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Less obviously notable than most other NUS presidents since about 1970, but on balance still notable enough for an article. Leaving aside his period as NUS president (for which there are almost certainly news sources from the time - but news sources from that time tend to be either offline or behind paywalls), there are certainly sources relating to his period working for Neil Kinnock between about 1988 and 1992 (just using previewable GBooks hits, this, this and this, for instance, each discuss Stewart in a little detail, and this and this, while more in the nature of passing mentions, still supply verifiable extra information). Since 1992, he has been running his own company, Neil Stewart Associates - it is easy enough to establish this from reliable sources, but beyond that, we may run into the standard problem of having plenty of sources, almost all of which however turn out to be company press releases. PWilkinson (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While there is some limited notability, the article is one sentence and was added in 2009, and has not changed. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting the SPI accounts, there is a clear consensus to delete. Nakon 03:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elvin Aghayev[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS, WP:GNG ― Padenton|✉ 21:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fwiw, "World Scientist Index" is equivalent to linkedin. You nominate yourself. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aren't the references provided enough proof about the notability of the subject? Just an innocent question. I've cross checked the links and wiki inter links. Looks valid to me. angamk( talk ) 29 March 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh, can we cross check the edits and page views and thereafter decide? Keeping should be good though as I find the article informative though the reference provided are too few. Maybe we can expand the list and remove the links that are irrelevant. Khangrah talk 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references are mostly published papers, which don't establish notability. The few other references and the only coverage of the subject are tweets that are embedded in a few articles. Are you suggesting some new sources that would meet the requirements of WP:GNG? ― Padenton|✉ 13:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Someone who's either just completed their PhD or is still writing up their dissertation, asserting this meets WP:PROF is fantastically overoptimistic, and presumably is because the author has the usual reason for writing about a nobody. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject doesn't appear to be a pursuing PhD. or have completed or whatever. Looks like the Institute doesn't offer that.VKWmi (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC) — VKWmi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment @VKWmi: and that establishes their notability...how? ― Padenton|✉ 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. And the keep arguments above are extremely weak and not policy-based. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Does not yet pass WP:BIO, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the reference links are third party entities, where does the question of GNG comes in here. Yeah, that's what I see. I am new here and just kinda wondering--Nomad25 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Nomad25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Nomad25: GNG comes into play because you didn't even look at the sources. Most of the sources are publications of the author, which does not establish notability per WP:NACADEMIC. The only news sources are not coverage of the subject, they merely embed his tweets, which makes the only coverage minor and self-published. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 13:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can we keep this for sometime with a tag less harsh and consider deletion if notability cannot be established within a given time? I think this give room for improvement if there are any. --Taureanbull1985 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Taureanbull1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Taureanbull1985: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The subject either meets notability guidelines and deserves to stay, or does not meet notability guidelines and deserves deletion. We are not discussing the quality of the article here, we are discussing the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of which there are none. ― Padenton|✉ 13:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Taureanbull1985: I think the best option if you would like to retain the work done would be to request the material be userfied or moved to the draft namespace where it can be developed before moving back to the article space. Speaking as one of the delete !votes above, I would have no objection to userfication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think userfication would be premature until the sockpuppetry issue is resolved. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking at the user contributions of keepers VKWmi, Nomad25, and Taureanbull1985 (very few, and limited purely to this AfD and topics related to diabetes in dogs of all things) it seems an SPI may be in order. I don't have time right now but if someone else doesn't get to it first I'll try to find some time later today for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's more going on than that. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC). I also nominate user:Kuknalim, user:Chonchonr and user:TharmingamK. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now up to 23 suspected socks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see evidence that the subject of this article meets minimal requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia. The standards are established, clear, and low, and I see no arguments that this person meets those standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal[edit]

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

Almost entirely advertising. The refs. are either to the company web site or press releases or only mention the company, or are routine notices about funding. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read all the references and a few were trustworthy 2nd parties, but a lot of times they are just references to listings and databases that would have info on nearly any company. I don't see anything notable just seems another company par for the course. Maybe it's horrible but we have articles on plane crashes not planes landing. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly questionable sources, seems best known for raising money. But new companies raising money is nothing new or notable. AlbinoFerret 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Articlee is no more of an advertisement than the one on facebook or thumbtack or adobe photoshop... Further most references to how photoshop works would reference the photoshop user manual written by adobe. Further wikipedia policy states that notability is not solley based on a companies popularity. Mynameisdeleted 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the nominator; there is no significant notice outside of advertorial or passing references. There is no discussion of how the business earns its money (nor can I find any information about this on their website or any other site), aside from raising capital investment. On looking at the article history, it is clear that much of the content has been added by single-purpose accounts, including what looks like a company-operated account. The website says it has made over a million calls, but doesn't discuss its success rate in linking people to service providers, so there is no measurement of the success of the company anywhere. It is not discussed in any of the sources, nor could I find any other sources that provided this information. In other words...there's nothing here but promotional material. Risker (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In view of the comments, I'm withdrawing the AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consular Agency of the United States, Bremen[edit]

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

Not an embassy or consulate general, just consular branch.No 3rd party sources WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: I don't see why "just consular branch" can be a reason for deletion, and I don't see when this article looks like something in the directory, either. As for "No 3rd party sources", I don't even know why it shows here. Howard61313 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination was a kick-in-the-pants to improve the article, and that has occurred. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: this article exists here on German Wikipedia, where it received 418 views in the past 90 days. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

number of page views is irrelevant to notability. WP:POPULARPAGE. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the earliest consulates opened by the United States and longest-open diplomatic missions the US operated (1794-1941, 1945?-1986, 2000-present). While the article is just a stub, that does not preclude maintaining an article for it (it may be improved in the future). AHeneen (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has been expanded with additional sources and details. As a quick suggestion, Smith (1950) contains some more information about the post-World War II situation in Bremen, that could be added. But the topic is clearly notable enough for a keep as is. GermanJoe (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As my opinion above. Howard61313 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the added sources, and arguments put forth by AHeneen and GermanJoe.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STAR Jalsha TV serials[edit]

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

A long list that is mostly pages made by sockpuppets/meat pupets (which the page was created by) Wgolf (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non-notable list of non-notable shows created by puppets.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE AlbinoFerret 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. What a mess. Neutrality^talk 16:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devdas (TV series)[edit]

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

One of these shows that was made by a meat puppet that is not a notable show Wgolf (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletete - this user made articles for tons of non-notable shows, some were a single line. Some appear at first glance to be heavily referenced but it's just a bunch of references to who was on the show and often is just a fan page or a "new show launched" report. This is not even one of those, it just has long unreferenced section describing the plot that is copied from the article about the novel of the same name (compare Devdas#Plot_summary).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, poor sources. Made by a sock? Why is it still on WP? AlbinoFerret 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio and iny case totally unreferenced. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwadasha jotirlingam[edit]

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

Copyright infringement Tomandjerry211 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Widnes F.C. season[edit]

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

Not a notable enough club for a season article. Kivo (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NSEASONS –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABI Research[edit]

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

This company does not appear to pass WP:CORP. The references provide just one in-depth article about the company, from its hometown paper. In a search I found no additional independent coverage - just press releases and user-supplied information at sites like CNBC and Bloomberg. A Google News search finds occasional passing mentions of one of their reports, but nothing about the company. MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Barely notable company that's been the subject of promo edits repeatedly. As MelanieN said, sources are just passing mentions or press releases. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 02:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable, indeed. -- Luk ^talk 13:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsider Many sources of direct citations in respected media apart from press releases as well as other factors.Timwiki99 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also the comment at User talk:Timwiki99. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears user has strong conflict of interest. Thanks for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. User was very direct and honest about that but encourages you to look at the facts, not at the user. Timwiki99 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also the comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ABI Research. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Sources I do agree that it is important for Wikipedia to adhere to WP:CORP. The issue becomes how do we define "notable". This standard needs more objectivity. Certainly having only a handful of people weigh in on this debate is insufficient. I believe it is only fair and objective for anyone stating here that the company is not notable to do some research of their own to back up that position. Here are some further citations not from company PR (I pulled these together in less than 10 minutes and I suspect one could find hundreds more if one invests the time):

ABI quoted in 1994 about a technology that today is finally getting a lot of attention: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/01/business/technology-putting-space-age-expertise-in-the-driver-s-seat.html

ABI’s Nick Marshall recognized as top 100 Wireless experts: http://www.todayswirelessworld.com/top100/

ABI’s Nick Spencer was interviewed by the WSJ for this story: http://www.wsj.com/articles/challenge-of-apple-watch-defining-its-purpose-1424133615

Stu Carlaw, ABI’s CRO, invited to be a judge at the world’s largest wireless conference: http://www.globalmobileawards.com/awards-history/judges-2012/#

Stu Carlaw interviewed by the ITU (a sub group of the UN): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jxfdqX4Fwg

Stu Carlaw hosts major conference session with COO of publicly traded company Cablevision and CEO of Tele2: http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/sessions/5124589889781760/

Michela Menting, ABI’s cybersecurity analyst, interviewed and quoted by Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/02/18/could-nsa-turn-your-hard-drive-into-cyber-spy/

Wireless expert Jeff Orr with ABI interviewed and quoted by NY Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/business/international/lenovo-no-1-in-pcs-aims-at-us-smartphone-market.html?_r=0 Timwiki99 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barely appears notable. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Long Island Business News article was a good, in-depth profile, but kind of dated and not really the kind of information we can use in the article. Then there are quotes in the media, but according to WP:NORG, quotes from an organization's personnel as story sources don't count toward notability. And frankly, considering the business model, I think this about all we are going to get. The company is successful, so my guess is that the market reports are pretty good. But they're confidential, so we can't see them. Since we are going to be more or less dependent on the company for press releases or whatever it chooses to reveal about itself, I think this is a case where it's just not a topic for an encyclopedia article. We're not a business directory, and having an article in Wikipedia is no big deal. Especially one this short, which is about all we can write. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Capitulating, Ok. It is still unclear to me how we define notable. If you were to ask 10,000 people randomly which is more notable, ABI or Alexandrine Grammarians, I am guessing you would have a much higher incidence (but still not very high) for ABI^[1]. And I enjoyed the article on Alexandrine Grammarians honestly and I do not believe it should be deleted. I bring it up just to make a point. In the circles of technology analysis and market intelligence, ABI is quite well known. But I will let this go as it has no material impact on ABI and I am sure the volunteer editors here have better things to do. I appreciate all your work and will continue to enjoy Wikipedia and send in my annual donations, even though I disagree with you all here. But, in the interest of real objectivity, it would be great if you applied the same critical eye to other pages like this one. A few examples of many:
- Frost & Sullian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_%26_Sullivan
- Ovum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovum_Ltd.
- Yankee Group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Group

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrine_grammarians

Timwiki99 (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable", as Wikipedia uses the term, is defined very clearly at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. It means the company has received significant coverage (published reporting) from independent reliable sources. "Significant", "independent", and "reliable" are also very clearly defined. It's true that "notable" may not be the best word to describe this requirement, because a company may think of itself as "notable" in other ways. Maybe we should call it "coverage", or "recognition". But the bottom line is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we need to see significant coverage from third parties before we can include a subject here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Companies in our industry tend to contribute to reporting on other companies. Generally, our industry doesn't itself get covered much. Perhaps this is the nature of the intelligence business. Anyway, we have withdrawn our arguments against deletion. Our only request as written above is that some objective source (should not be us) review the pages of similar entries on Wikipedia. It would be grossly unfair to not apply this standard equally. Timwiki99 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a list of other companies you feel are similarly situated and post it to my talk page so they can be considered for deletion. I agree that its a problem for some companies to have articles while their competitors of similar size do not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this article can't be more than a stub with the sources available. Not enough coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Chicago aldermanic elections, 2015. Seems to be agreement here that speedy action needed. Anyone, feel free to revert if you feel this is inappropriate. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Yañez[edit]

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

Unelected politician (de facto campaign biography). An earlier attempt at a bold redirect was challenged by the content creator at AN/I and I believe that we should thus treat this like we would a contested PROD. At a glance this is not a GNG pass but I have not examined this at length and am making this AfD nomination as a courtesy to the original content creator so that a defense may be at least made. Carrite (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect or Speedy Userfy (with a NOINDEX magic word) until the election is over. A virtually uncited and overly complimentary article on a candidate who bears little to no other cited notability should not exist on Wikipedia mainspace. The article's creator may have been well meaning but they need mentorship. Also, the unexplained list of 15 unformatted and untitled External Links is extremely problematic -- some of them may be useful, but who has the time to click and read each one? All in all, this article is problematic as is, any way one looks at it, and as the nominator states, is a campaign biography. It needs to disappear from mainspace, fast. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The election is April 7 [14] (15th Ward), and is a run-off between Yañez and someone who does not have a wiki article, so this article needs to go away fast. @Carrite: I know you meant well un-redirecting this article, but it shouldn't stand for a full week's AfD in my opinion, due to the promotional nature of it and due to the fact that the election is only nine days away right now. Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender: How about putting a NOINDEX up until the AfD is closed, would that solve the promotional problem satisfactorily without corrupting the deletion process? Carrite (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, if he wins the election, he'll be an almost certain WP:POLITICIAN keep as an elected Chicago alderman. There is a case to be made for a TNT delete-and-rebuild in that case. This piece clearly needs a massive overhaul if kept; if sources can be mustered in the defense here, I'm willing to do that. I don't want to sink time on a deleted page though. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As long as it's on mainspace it's still linkable from the election articles, surname article, etc. Since it's four months old it's already been indexed by Google [even though for some reason it's not coming up on Google at this precise instant; Google is like that sometimes with its new algorithms] and will stay that way for a month or so even if it were to get deleted. Could we draftify it (with a NOINDEX code) while the AfD is in progress? That way it disappears from mainspace, but we can link to it here and discuss it? Softlavender (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ETA: I agree there is usable material here if he is elected; I just don't want this article on mainspace influencing that election. Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It should not have been restored and it needs to be removed PDQ. I am seriously considering putting a CSD tag on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedy delete or redirect per G-11. With due respect to Carrite, whose motives I believe are reasonable, this AfD is an unnecessary waste of time. The subject clearly fails WP:POL. In it's current form the article is just a campaign add. Any coverage from press and media is purely of the run of the mill sort that all candidates for public office get. There is no reason to drag this out for the sake of formality. The article is obvious CSD material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography, not an ad. Not G11 worthy. Certainly it needs a massive rewrite, but that's not a notability question. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. This is blatant promotionalism and it's continued presence in the main space is very unfair. If I were the other candidate or one of his/her supporters I would be pretty ticked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty blatant. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a campaign ad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's a WP:COATRACK political ad very thinly disguised as a bio. If this isn't a campaign add then there is no such thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original solution was best: merge into Chicago aldermanic elections, 2015, and convert to a redirect – the current article is problematic, as it clearly seems to be "promotional". If this individual wins election on April 7, then a (hopefully more appropriate) article can be restored here. --IJBall (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-read this article. Just looking at one paragraph it is largely unsourced and reads like a press release, like this unsupported and unattributed claim: He realized he wanted to help mentor youth facing many of the issues of modern urban life. According to whom, the candidate himself? This is what you read from a campaign handout, and if it were stripped of puffery it would be lucky to make stub quality.

I am tempted just to be bold, and redirect it now as suggested above, any objections?

No objections here. However the article has already been redirected once. The nom reverted it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is the best solution, until the election is over. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should also be aware that the creator of this page is the subject of an ANI report here for edit warring on the Chicago mayoral race signed in and under an IP address. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that promotional content and tone can be removed by copy editing the article. As per this discussion, adding a ((Cleanup AfD)) template to the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AWS Truepower[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, reads like an advert with no third party citations JMHamo (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. Pax 06:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of third-party coverage online, here's a sampling: [15] [16]/[17] [18] [19] [20]. Current problems on the page are surmountable, since spammy prose is easy to fix. You just, like...hit delete and save. (mindblowing) Earflaps (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ADMASQ. Above-mentioned third-party coverage is not enough. From this sources first and fifth are reprints of the press releases and other sources (except the last one) only mentioning the company which is not enough for WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. If there are really enough independent sources to satisfy WP:CORP, it would be better to recreate this article from the scratches. Beagel (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the sources in the article seem to be from the company, and it is rather promotional in tone. However, there is a good deal of third-party coverage. Looking only at Google News turned up these, which are are all solid news stories, not press releases.
- [21] North American Windpower: Are Fitch Ratings' Claims About Wind Farm Underperformance Unfounded?
- [22] Measuring the Wind and the Sun : Greentech Media
- [23] Change in wind hurts future - Times Union
- [24] Waning Wind | EnergyBiz
- [25] Cherokee Chronicle Times: Local News: The art of building utility-scale wind farms (01/27/14)

These say enough about the wind forecasting business to write a decent article. A quote from the second one: '"We're the leading provider of wind forecasts in North America to ISOs and utilities and provide assessment services to all of the major wind and solar developers throughout the world," was as specific as AWS Truepower would be.' – Margin1522 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added in the ones you found. Earflaps (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. (even after discounting the ed. mentioned at the end) DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur India Magazine[edit]

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

I can't find any sources discussing this publication and so I do not believe that it is notable. I don't think there's a notability guideline for magazines, but WP:NBOOKS can be used as a general comparison, and those criteria are not met. I am also concerned that the long "Awards" section is used as a way to promote those people (one prolific serial spammer of Wikipedia is mentioned in the section with a link to his website) when the awards themselves do not appear to be at all notable. There is no source for the claim that the magazine's awards are "[India's] most prestigious awards in the Entrepreneur area", and I very much doubt the veracity of that statement. bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - bonadea I got your point of view and on your note I have removed the reference you mentioned. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Few reference added. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Four references have been added (actually five, but one was to a Wikipedia article, so I removed that and added a Wikilink instead). This one is a brief bio of the editor-in-chief and, interestingly, does not mention this magazine at all; this one is about the Entrepreneur India awards, and again doesn't mention the magazine; this is a list of award winners, from the magazine itself (primary source) ; and the [26] last one is about one of the winners, and it mentions the award but not the magazine. So there is really no indication at all that the magazine is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just have removed the ridiculously long list of awards and awardees. WP is not a web hosting service... I fully agree with Bonadea's analysis of the references. Those that are independent are just in-passing mentions. One of them reads like a news release and one other is a portrait of an awardee in some vanity journal. In addition, I can't even figure out what exactly the name of this publication is, their website is rather confusing about it. Given the lack of reliable sources, that's irrelevant, though. --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2 References Added. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More press releases. One is about the "Small Medium Entrepreneur", which is an alternate name of the magazine (??) --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes Randykitty, the magazine have the alternate name as well. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article looks stud to me. Moreover google search does not adds any value to this article proving it's notability. It looks a piece of advertisement of an unpopular magazine. Dormantos (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[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) 15:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Only two keep votes, but both of them provide many sources to prove the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Fiori[edit]

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

Unremarkable software which lacks coverage in reliable sources. A search only results in affiliated websites, promotional material, and press releases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of SAP products. Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are a blog and company PR, not WP:RS. Redirect to parent company product list as the company is certainly notable.Dialectric (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This seems to be the new user interface for SAP apps. Which is a big deal if you are a user or developer, as SAP is the world's leading business app vendor. There was enough third-party coverage to tell what it is:[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] And a controversy over whether it should be free... that seems to have been settled recently (it will be free). So enough to write about. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [35], [36], [37] (pp. 134-136), [38] (pp 62-63), [39] (pp. 19-20). See also WP:BEFORE, section D. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timing delay in vlsi circuit[edit]

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

What can I say? The article has no sources, and it is not clear what it is even about. It is not clear to the casual observer that it is even about a real subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one specific type of delay in Very-large-scale integration systems, for which is very improbable to warrant a WP:SPINOUT of any form. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The understanding and approximate calculation of timings and delays is an important topic in circuit design, enough so that we already have several articles on it: Delay calculation, Static timing analysis, Statistical static timing analysis, Elmore delay, etc. It is conceivable that one could write an article on timing issues in VLSI design using books like Static Timing Analysis for Nanometer Designs: A Practical Approach and class lectures like [40]. But this article has only a barest, confusing, unannotated list of delay types. I don't think there is compelling reason to keep this less than a stub of an article just for its suggestive title. There is no prejudice to someone creating a proper article on this notable topic. --Mark viking (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self Destruction (film)[edit]

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

Unotable web film that I can't find anything for (no luck looking up Self Destruction (film) on google as I keep on getting 50 Cent youtube videos instead!) Wgolf (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is almost ten years old with no improvements in sourcing. The "Official Website" no longer exists. Thus, it fails WP:GNG MarnetteD|Talk 16:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: I am not willing to say either keep or delete just yet. Specially as it develops that this 2001 Taiwanese film is not unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well it would of been nice to know the alternate title of it in English not using Chinese characters since I couldn't find it under this name. But oh well, still seems unotable. Wgolf (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Access to Taiwanese sources for this Chinese film not released in the US is difficult. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I managed to turn up these Google Book sources (The Animation Business Handbook and Historical Dictionary of Taiwan Cinema), which both make mention to a Taiwanese animated character named A-kuei. Note that this article is saying A-kuei was the film studio, not a character, and that the the Animation Business Handbook names the film studio behind the A-kuie character as Spring House Entertainment. So it's not a perfect match by any means. Still, the books also say that the A-kuei character was created for a website (Self Destruction was apparently a web film) and the ABH highlights 2001 as a notable year for the character (Self Destruction was apparently released in 2001). I don't know how common of name A-kuei is in Taiwanese, but these shared details seem too similar to write off as mere coincidence. According to the ABH, the A-kuei character inspired merchandising, appeared in advertising and even as a guest on TV shows, and was set to be the focus of a feature film. So this character actually seems fairly noteworthy; whether it has any connection to Self Destruction though, I can't say for sure. I'm inclined to think that this topic actually is notable, but sadly, between the incredible length of time that's elapsed and the language barrier, I doubt that any quality refs will turn up to display that notability. There very well may be some Chinese-language sources out there, and there might even be a few English-language sources archived in the Way Back Machine - but without knowing the original url, I'm not sure how we could locate those, even if they do in fact exist. --Jpcase (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually just discovered a few more refs about the A-kuei character and Spring House Entertainment (Bloomberg Business, Taiwan Info, Variety) Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is notable and deserves its own article. But does it have any connection to Self Destruction? I still don't know. A-kuei doesn't seem to be a character in Self-Destruction and the refs clearly indicate that he is aimed at children - Self Destruction includes a "serial killer" as a character, so yeah, draw your own conclusion ;) - Still, A-kuei is a digital animated character created for a Taiwanese website; Self Destruction is a digitally animated film created for a Taiwanese website; not all of Spring House Entertainment's content includes the A-kuei character and some of it is aimed at adults. Could A-kuei Production House (the studio behind Self Destruction) be a subsidy of Spring House Entertainment? Or could Spring House have even changed its name somewhere down the line? Or maybe A-kuei Production House doesn't even exist and was just entered as an error. All possibilities. But none of them can be proven at this point. And even if Self Destruction really was produced by Spring House, there's nothing that makes it noteworthy enough for its own article. So my vote would either be Delete or Redirect to a newly created Spring House Entertainment article. Either way, I strongly support the creation of an article for Spring House Entertainment. --Jpcase (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film does not meet notability guidelines - that's all that needs to be wrong with it (and there is plenty more wrong with it). There's been no shortage of time to remedy. Elephantbronze (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gone ahead and created a basic article for Spring House Entertainment. I have no real preference as to whether this article is redirected over there or deleted, since while it seems highly possible that there's a connection between the two of them, nothing has actually been proven to that end. --Jpcase (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Newgen Software Technologies Limited

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

Not notable. The Economic Times article is apparently PR, for this is a minor company with no significant products. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a news search returns a LOT of hits, but I think all of them are press releases, and therefore unsuitable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the previous AfD less than 5 months ago, significant reliable source coverage exists and therefore notability is established. Really it isn't even close. Pinging previous AfD participants: @VMS Mosaic, ShulMaven, and Lakun.patra: --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Timtrent: who accepted the article at AfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. DGG has a point regarding the promotional nature, perhaps press release material, in the Economic Times article. At AFC we do sometimes make mistakes. If I have, so be it. If I have not, so be it. So thank you for pinging me. I will let others decide. Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom for the first AFD I prefer to remain neutral. But I seriously doubt its notability. Most of the sources are press releases. There are some references but are just passing by remarks or about Carlyle group investing. Other than that could not find anything worthy. Will let other editors decide. Thanks for the ping ThaddeusB. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as last AfD. Including searches on the company's products turns up endless hits (mostly minor but not all) including books, case studies on the software, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? All I could find was trivial passing mentions or press releases. Certainly nothing to write a neutral article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a few substantive mentions: [41] [42] [43] [44] Though I'd like to see more coverage, I think being covered by Forrester Research and Gartner are pretty good. Cinteotl (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the closer of the previous AFD that looks like it was closed perhaps a little too early, Meh we're human and all make mistakes, Anyway Keep per most of Cinteotl's findings. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I've got a minority opinion on this one, but of the sources provided by Cinteotl, the only one (in my view) that is not a press release is this one, which relegates Newgen to a single quotation from its founder, saying nothing about the company, what it is, or what it does. That's not really suitable to be able to write a balanced article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope you're right - that one is useless but IMHO the rest are generally fine. –Davey2010^Talk 10:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Article can be recreated after any notable invention is launched and secondary sources become available Dormantos (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it isn't a biography, so your rationale makes no sense. Perhaps you accidently commented on the wrong AfD? Also, being a stub is not a reason for deletion and secondary sources are already available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: 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. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syswox[edit]

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

no reliable third party sources for notability. Refs 1 &3 are from their own web site. The Businessweek ref is just a directory entry. The nasscom article cannot be located, but is apparently a mere PR announcement./ DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several source searches, does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple sources. As DGG notes, refs provided are incidental mentions or not WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Free content#Copyfree. Nakon 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyfree[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for lack of notability for more than since August 2013. The only references listed in the article are to the organisation itself. No evidence of notability in reliable, independent sources. — Keφr 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't start to think why anyone should think WP would be improved by deleting this article. If someone wants to see what Copyfree is shouldn't they be able to look it up? Also, the answer they would expect is beyond a dictionary definition. This is one of the (rare) cases where the notability criteria lead to an inappropriate result – they are guidelines, after all. And if there were to be consensus we should not have an article, surely this is a (highly) likely search term so should redirect to Free content#Copyfree and whatever would be wrong in merging some of the clearly verifiable information here? Deletion is the wrong thing to be aiming for. Thincat (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is one of the many situations where the notability criteria measure a subject's prominence quite well. You did not even attempt to refute it. — Keφr 19:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a recreation of a previously deleted article, and still remains non-notable. (Even the section Free content#Copyfree ought to go, for the same reason, but that's a different discussion.) Shreevatsa (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (else ThinCat's suggestion above if !voting leans the other way). If we can have Beerware, then we can have the larger set in which Beerware belongs. (Given the relative lack of participation in previous AfDs, I'm not lending their results much weight.) Pax 08:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Notability is determined individually. The above is an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. — Keφr 09:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a good and honourable project, but at the moment still completely irrelevant. Unlike beerware, I can't tell if "version 42" and the alleged history make sense, but software authors use(d) a license with this name for their (almost) freeware. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Free content#Copyfree. This seems to get some mention in independent reliable sources (quite enough to make it a viable search term), and the suggested target does cite one of these. PWilkinson (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly obscure web page of a slightly obscure initiative. For comparison, if Freedom would be limited to http://freedomdefined.org I'd support a deletion of Freedom. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free content#Copyfree - The subject has too little coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. Esquivalience ^t 14:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Free content#Copyfree. I understand why it is notable but as of now it has not gained enough prominence to be its own article. Very few references to it. If it is gains traction, article can be restored and expanded. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Free content#Copyfree, as a functional WP:ATD in this case. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClearTax[edit]

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

Advert for a Non notable website. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first India-focused Y Combinator startup which is fairly significant. Notability is also clear with multiple instances of coverage in reliable sources like TechCrunch, NDTV, Times of India, The Economic Times, and similar. Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian has talked about ClearTax on CNBC India. (Trustandhonesty) — Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page cites sources that are legit by wiki standards. As far as tech startups in India go, I think ClearTax is notable enough. Instamojo_Inc. has a page for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.21.101 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the nonsensical 'my competition has an article, why can't I' excuse. Not a valid reason. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instamojo_Inc. is not a competitor, or a company in the same industry. It is an example of another Indian startup that has a wikipedia page that passes notability & neutrality guidelines. The page is written in a completely neutral way, there is absolutely nothing advertorial or superlative about the copy. There are multiple prominent news articles (Indian and International publications) covering ClearTax. So, according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, ClearTax is notable enough.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. (Some of these egregious cases could go with speedy tags rather than AfDs.) Pax 21:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article cites a full story by NDTV and a paragraph in the Times of India, among other sources. Granted, most or all of the coverage seems to be about their connection with YCombinator. Still, WP:CORP requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and the case can be made that they meet that standard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marco Mazzi. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager, a Journey through Time and Water[edit]

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

Some indications of WP:NOTABILITY, but not enough for me to establish it. No Japanese or Italian articles. Has been tagged for notability for seven years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Part of the problem is linguistic, hopefully someone can help there. Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who have looked at its notability before (it has been nominated for speedy and prod): Gillyweed who tagged it for notability in the first place, BigDunc whonominated it for speedy deletion and then prodded, Moonriddengirl who looked at the speedy nomination, DGG who rejected the prod. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even find an IMDB entry. Is that the correct name? —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though some do, art installations films rarely make it to IMDB. Different audience and expectations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the artist article. The exhibition is mentioned there, and I've added the name of the film, but I don't think we really need a merger so to speak. It would overwhelm the artist article. The original source that supported the article is still visible via Wayback - the name is correct. But standalone notability seems really doubtful, and it's been hanging out in this shape long enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to and a slight expansion of its information at the Marco Mazzi artist's article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marco Mazzi as per the comments above--not notable as an independent work but worth a little expansion in the artist article. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 21:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Colon and Rectal Surgical Associates[edit]

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

Not notable. No awards. No specific contribution to science. References go to non-Reliable sources. Never has treated any Notable people. Sheer advertising. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If this is spam...then WHAM! (sorry, I've wanted to do that for a long time) Bfpage |leave a message 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable references. Most of article written by original editor, plainly a PR plant. This is spam. Tapered (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salsa Labs[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. It did land a large client in 2010, the AFL-CIO,[45] and lost a co-founder in 2012.[46] Meanwhile, the existing references are just announcements and a minor dead link. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FEU Advocate[edit]

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

Written like an ad, only cited to itself, ViperSnake151 Talk 00:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because: "Advertisement + Lacking additional citations for verification + Original research = Bad article". In other words, the article seems to be an ad, lacks enough sources for verification and seems to contain original research. --TL22 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full country rankings for Miss Grand International[edit]

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

unsourced fancruft and content fork from parent article The Banner talk 01:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is WP:Fancruft. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbling Cat[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article was created to promote Potions: A Curious Tale, a non-notable game. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP: GNG. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 03:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer fails WP: GNG User:RikuKat (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in use are not reliable, independent sources. (?) czar ⨹ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. RikuKat's attempt is appreciated morally here, but a business registration (not in-depth by nature, only proves existence) and a link to a ~~non-notable~~ previous project by one of the founders is far from satisfying the notability requirements. It is unsurprisingly hard to establish notability when the company's only product listed in the article has still not confirmed its release date. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah AirMech is okay (in notability), but still notability is not inherited just by sharing common key people. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. The1337gamer (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to the related Potions game would be worthwhile, but that's also at AfD and I don't think it will stay. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 08:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potions: A Curious Tale[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been looking forward to this game, why delete the entry only to put it back when it goes live? - dennisandvicki, 02:02, 31 March 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisandvicki (talk • contribs)
Delete No references. Not enough people have heard of it. Possible self-promotion, because only the creator(s) and their friends have likely played this game. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the user, RikuKat also made the page Stumbling Cat which promotes the video game company that produced Potions: A Curious Tale. WP:SOAP. Psychotic Spartan 123 03:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References exist. Credible claim of significance, has following of several hundred people. User_talk:RikuKat — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article maintains neutral tone, so WP:SOAP does not apply. User_talk:RikuKat03:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to make this notable. WP: TOOSOON. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 03:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The development blog for this game has hundreds of followers: [47] As does the development stream: http://www.twitch.tv/rikukitty The lead developer is extremely active in the game development community has a large following [48] and has appeared as a guest on game development talks with Rami Ismail [49] 03:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikuKat (talk • contribs)

comment Youtube, forums, and blogs aren't reliable sources. Psychotic Spartan 123 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹ 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, there's no independent coverage at all of this game. The1337gamer (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets since its parent company article will similarly be deleted. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 08:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Poormohamad[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. De-PROD rationale was I don't get this nomination either. Article states he appeared many times last season for Malavan F.C. in Iranian Pro League listed in WP:FPL. A claim I in turn don't understand, since the infobox pretty clearly says that he has played for Rahian Kermanshah F.C. since 2013. His appearances for Malavian were all in the 2nd tier of Iranian football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be notable - thanks to @Nfitz: for the research. @Sir Sputnik: you might want to withdraw seeing as there are no no remaining 'delete' !votes. Giant Snowman 17:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the info box says he had 19 appearances from 2010 to 2012 (oops last team, not last season) for Malavan F.C. in Iranian Pro League listed in WP:FPL. Malavan has been continually in this league since 2004. What confuses things is that there seems to be 2 Soccerway entries, both [50] confirming 14 appearances at Malavan and [51] showing recent play. The keeper who played for Malavan clearly and easily meets WP:FPL. But is this the same player as this article claims? Nfitz (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found an interview with him that mentions his play both at Malavan F.C. and Rahian Kermanshah F.C., so it is the same keeper and [52] confirms that he had many appearances for Malavan F.C. who are in the Iranian Pro League listed in WP:FPL. I also found [53] and [54] which list two entries for him, though the first also links Malavan F.C. and Rahian Kermanshah F.C.. So definitely meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As nominator. @GiantSnowman:, you may want to re-evaluate your !vote. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CS#A7 (I changed my mind). Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keyaira D. Saunders[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, candidate for city council without any other signs of notability. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Needs to get elected first. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the article, but I improved it, and I believe the stub was created in good faith.

Additional references will be added LATE tonight and tomorrow to establish notability. If you are looking for a reason to delete, any one will do. If you are looking for reasons not to, you can find them. *Disclaimer-Editorializing- Our system is messed up with rules so strongly favoring the establishment that nobody running for office is given the chance to establish notability unless they have already been elected. I'll go cite a couple more sources for you and put them on the talk page. There is no need to arrogantly delete everything right away, since there will be about a thousand people who find the Wiki article useful if you just let it stay up until May 9th.DCdanielcaldwell 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwaysremember (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not an election hustings. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete.Advertisment and no indication of significance.Nicky mathew (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN. The only information I can find is routine election coverage. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep it. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People "running for office" are not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Caldwell article was tagged for speedy delete, and I deleted it. Caldwell (who is Alwaysremember above), vigorously complained on my talk page here. I'm tempted to speedy delete this article as recommended by RHaworth, but I'll let another administrator deal with it, either through the usual week-long AfD or whatever they think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, and Ballotpedia is user edited, and not a reliable source. The other reference is a routine list of candidates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7: "Candidate for … City Council" is not a claim of significance or importance. If a credible claim is added, then Delete as non-notable. —teb728 t c 06:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Election campaigning is an abuse of Wikipedia. This should have been speedied, instead we are now forced to waste several days on going through the motions just to get rid of a blatantly spammy non-notable topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Ilie (footballer, born 1995)[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 article appears quite significant. This is not a policy based argument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to this brief mention by a local news outlet, he almost made the team in a friendly tournament, but was placed on loan at a team in a lower league. It also suggests he was at the time a member of his country's U19 national team, but I can't find any details about that.- Andrei (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edge[edit]

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

A user who seems to be Paul Edge has requested deletion of this page here. I believe we should honour that wish. After all, this article is basically unsourced anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not going to comment on the user's request, but I think it can be deleted as completely unsourced, and the notability is also questionable. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person would have to verify their identity through the WP:OTRS process in order for us to give weight to their request. So, I will look at the article only on the face of it. This article is referenced only to IMdB, which is insufficient in itself for establishing notability. So, delete unless we see a dramatic improvement in sourcing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the request, subject seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO or at least I couldn't find enough sources that could put him past it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this unsourced (except for the unreliable IMDB) BLP article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found an AllMusic page but nothing else. This is a serious BLP violation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep and rename as Utoy, Georgia. Already renamed; I asked Carrite to do further rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utoy Village[edit]

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

Apparently there was a Native American village at Utoy Creek, but that doesn't mean much. There were Native American villages all over North America back then; few, if any, were officially recognized. Fails WP:NGEO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There does appear to be evidence that the village existed. Officially recognized is irrelevant because Native American villages were never under the jurisdiction of US law. The treaties recognized territories, not villages. Doesn't matter, they were inhabited places. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. According to NGEO, being inhabited isn't enough; "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis" and revert to the standard "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". See any? I don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that a guideline about the notability of places "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc." is inappropriate when we are talking about a place and a culture that was never legally recognized until after the inhabitants had been forcibly relocated to somewhere else. There is enough material to write about the original inhabitants of what is now Fulton County, Georgia, e.g. here. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. There may or may not be enough material for Native Americans in Fulton County, Georgia. There is none for one specific village; all it says is "Garrett denoted 20 villages, most concentrated along the Chattahoochee River, Peachtree Creek, Nancy Creek, Utoy Creek and Camp Creek." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a problem that occurs in AfD discussions – the nom suggests a narrow definition of the topic and wants to delete the article because he can't find sources for that topic. I'm assuming here that this article was created by someone who took the bus tour and visited the village. Granted, that is pretty weak in terms of WP:V. But there are sources for other things mentioned in the article, such as the local Native American culture, the Sandtown Trail, the treaty, the Civil War battle, the post office, and the postwar suburb. If we want sources for that stuff, let's tag it for sources. The article claims that this was the first area in the Atlanta region to be settled by Europeans, because the land had already been cleared by Native American farmers. If that's true, it seems notable to me.

I'll add that I'm especially reluctant to !vote delete because of the wording of the nomination. This may have been unintentional, but it seems to be suggesting a general principle – that Native American villages all over North America were insignificant and can be excluded from WP for lack of legal recognition from authorities who came later. I'm really reluctant to agree with that. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see a problem with verification? Nothing in the article is sourced (I wouldn't call an anonymously written paragraph or two reliable), and very little of the unreferenced stuff even has anything to do with the village. Nobody back then seems to have written much down about it or 99% of the other Native American settlements of the time. "In 1521, the village was likely visited by ... Ponce de León" simply because he was in the area?

A "narrow definition"? The article is titled "Utoy Village", not Things that happened or possibly happened somewhere in the vicinity of Utoy Village or where it used to be. "August 267th [sic] 1864 the Entire [sic] US Army moved down the Fairburn Road in the vicinity of the town of Utoy"? Somehow, I doubt the entire Union Army was on the move, but even ignoring this inaccuracy, so what? I'm pretty sure Sherman and his men marched past a lot of places on their March to the Sea. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is actually an interesting question. There is no doubt that there was a village or villages along Utoy Creek. Whether they were named "Utoy Village" is more dubious; this strikes me as modern nomenclature. I see that we have a Battle of Utoy Creek on WP, from the American Civil War. I see that there is a Utoy Cemetery that may well have enough sourcing in the world to merit a GNG pass. But "Utoy Village?" That I sort of doubt. While there were hundreds or thousands of first nations in the US and Canada and each different from one another, I know that in my region of the country "villages" were fairly temporary, with seasonal changes of location and probably moves of the winter camps from one place to another over time. It strikes me as unlikely that the same "Utoy Village" which "may" have been visited by Ponce de Leon was the same as the locale of later village or villages in that general area. There is evidence, I SEE, of an 1821 Utoy post office. So I think this is probably a "named inhabited place" in WP terms, albeit perhaps a ghost town. If you put all these things together, I think there is probably enough material for a piece on Utoy, Georgia. But "Utoy Village?" Not so sure... Carrite (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is starting to look like my above hunch is right. Here is Herr's Episodes of the Civil War, pg. 280: "...While these movements were being made the army of the Tennessee marched to the vicinity of Utoy village [note capitalization. -t.d.], where it was massed facing south, and forming the right of the army." — This is highly indicative of an inhabited place called Utoy, Georgia — and it would be very easy to integrate the aboriginal history of the vicinity into a historical narrative about the place. That strikes me as the correct decision under our notability rules, in which consensus has traditionally regarded all named, inhabited places of confirmed existence as presumably notable. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Utoy, Georgia. Rewrite existing content to form and integrate post 1820 history of the place (ghost town?) into the same page. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS indicates the Utoy cemetery is on the Georgia list of historic places and mentions the existence of a Utoy Primitive Baptist Church (now renamed). Apparently Utoy is part of Atlanta today. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Clarityfiend and Margin1522 to see if they find my argument persuasive. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would be fine with that. The cemetery definitely exists, see also here. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit flimsier than I'd like, but the Herr mention and the various other bits and pieces are, I suppose, enough, barely, maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this closes as a Keep, will the closing administrator please ping me and I will put the full rewrite on my "to-do" list. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Jhaveri[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - non-notable individual with no significant coverage from third party sources. A summary of the sources can be found on the article talk page. KH-1 (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered as significant sources? Being published in a major magazine or being founder of multiple companies and a charity is not considered notable? There are many examples of similar profiles on wikipedia such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepen_Shah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Cuffe

The profile follows guidelines of WikiProject Biography.

KH-1 has been biased on getting the profile deleted without any major constructive criticism or research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.53 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate accusations of bad-faith. According to WP:BASIC - 'People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.' The existing coverage (as outlined on the talk page) simply does not meet this criteria. -KH-1 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bailey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the claims in the article can be sourced - the subject either fails WP:BIO or might simply not even exist. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the only source that I can find is this one, and I am not even sure if that is a reliable source. Therefore, unless reliable sources can be found that give the subject significant coverage, the subject appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bridie Goldstein Run for Children[edit]

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

Non-notable and no reliable outside sources to be found. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not establish notability when I tagged this in June 2014. Kvng (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article per WP:N. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Core stability. Nakon 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Core muscle training[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. One of the references is to a book by Oswaldo Koch--the page was created by Oskoch (clear COI). It's been 10 years and nothing has been done to confirm notability of this subject, likely because it just can't be. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to confirm notability of this subject? Siuenti (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti: I've looked into it more and it seems like this essentially blends Core stability and Abdominal exercise. It is fairly clear that the original Core muscle training article was intended to promote the creating editor's own work, which is likely why this redundant article was created. I don't believe it provides any more information than either of the articles above, however, it may be better to do a merge and/or redirect than a straight AfD. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those. I'd be happy with a redirect to core stability while hoping someone knowledgeable comes along to improve it. Siuenti (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to claim that the notability of the topic can't be confirmed. That is quite false. For example, see:

Delavier's Core Training Anatomy
Core Assessment and Training
The Complete Book of Core Training
Core Strength Training
Developing the Core
Push-Up Progression Workout for a Stronger Core
Core Strength Workout
Effects of core muscle strengthening training on flexibility, muscular strength and driver shot performance in female professional golfers
Core muscle activation during Swiss ball and traditional abdominal exercises
Core training: stabilizing the confusion
Does core strength training influence running kinetics, lower-extremity stability, and 5000-M performance in runners?
The effects of preseason trunk muscle training on low-back pain occurrence in women collegiate gymnasts

Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to core stability Wgolf (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't find much info on the page that can be merged. It's better if redirected. Dormantos (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Projector PSA[edit]

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

The few sources that can be accessed are not true third party sources, or, like ref 3, press releases. Given the very minor prizes, Iwouldn;t expect more DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many source links were broken. Updated source links with current URLs. Added additional source from third party (ref 4). Ref 3 is article written by industry analyst, not press release as stated. TimeThief123 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reference #3 in the current version is definitely not a press release, but maybe numbering has changed. What it actually is is a trivial mention in an article about a broader subject, and thus doesn't convey notability. However, references #1, #4, and #7 are reports by industry experts which appear to be reliable sources. Reference #5 is a professional editorial review. Combined, these sources show that the GNG is met. For the record, there are zero press releases in the current version of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the writeups I looked at were independently written, so WP:GNG is met OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualex-Landmark[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable firm. The prizes are minor--either very narrow categories or local. The references are o routine announcements or press releases DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - teh article's language could definitely use some weasel word cleansing and the awards may well be unimportant and perhaps should be removed from the article. However, AfD is not for cleanup and the company is notable as a new search shows - there are a few trivial/routine stories in the mix, but plenty of good ones too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough claims of importance outside of any awards. Although referencing here is mostly to press releases and its own website, I can see there are plenty of other available references in newspapers like the Calgary Sun and Calgary Herald. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment as far as I can tell by he references, essentially every one of the awards is local to the Calgary region. the article says "The majority of Qualex-Landmark projects have been designed by architect, Foad Rafii, described by The Vancouver Sun as one of the 10 architects who have shaped Vancouver today" So he did, but he's notable for his other work, as the article on him makes clear, and primarily in Vancouver, as even the sentence in the article makes clear. Looking at the Google Rreferences, most of them mention him in the context of a general discussion (as this or are pure press releases , such as this, which is closer to an advertisement than a press release . DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyme Skool with Katrina Kaif[edit]

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

The article was previously subject of an AfD (refer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursery Rhymes Audio CD) but was deleted as the editor blanked the page and re-created the article under the current title Rhyme Skool with Katrina Kaif. The article does not satisfy any of the criteria under WP:NALBUMS and has had a notability tag since June 2014. Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly notable, I do not see where it is written like an advertisement. Though some more secondary and tertiary citations like [55],[56], [57], [58] needs to be added. Mr RD 15:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm rather on the fence at the moment but almost inclining to a a "weak keep". I was the one who had tagged it as an advert back in 2014 when it contained stuff like this. I'm surprised that the` later editors who cleaned up and copyedited the article didn't remove that tag. The references found by Mr RD are from considerably better sources than the ones currently in the article and do comment on the music, not just the launch publicity , plus there's this one from the Indian Express. It might scrape a pass on GNG. I just don't know enough about the Indian music scene to know what kind of music charts they have, if any, and whether this album or its Vol 2 ever placed on them. Thus, I'd be reluctant to apply the criteria at WP:ALBUM too stringently or exclude the article solely on those grounds. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, I believe the article passes on GNG from some of the facts about the personalities associated with it as well as the coverage it has received in Indian media. Since Indian media news do not get crawled much efficiently in Google news therefore sometimes it becomes difficult to search for them. Talking about the persons associated with this album, A. R. Rahman is a world renowned music composer-singer while Katrina Kaif is a famous actress. In India, not much reliable and famous music charts are there therefore notability can not be judged on that behalf. Also as these are the nursery rhymes therefore coming of them in any charts is not possible either. For India related articles, please use this tool to search for notable media citations. Mr RD 16:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure notability can be inherited to this extent. If A. R. Rahman himself had composed the songs, it would different. Instead, they were composed by his students. But I agree that it may pass GNG on the coverage you've found. Still thinking on this, but I may well !vote "Keep" in the end. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Abel Pintos[edit]

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

I know there are a lot of these type of lists (see Category:Lists of songs by recording artists), but not all musical acts have them so I am wondering what is the criteria to have one. I am nominating this one because none of the songs or albums by the artist have their own articles and all of the sources are primary. According to WP:LISTN, none of the songs have to be notable but the collection of songs here would have to be discussed in independent reliable sources. So in this case, the discography section on Abel Pintos should suffice. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fine example of list-cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None are sourced, None are wikilinked, As Lugnuts says this is a fine example of listcruft, I'm beginning to wonder if Abel Pintos should be up here too but perhaps that's jumping the gun. –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar ⨹ 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Mungello[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC White Whirlwind 咨 16:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mungello is a full professor at Baylor. He has published a long list of book with university presses, several of which have been translated into other languages. The books have been respectfully reviewed in major journals. both his books and his scholarly articles get cited. Even on wikipedia itself, multiple pages on China-related topics link to his page. A full professorship at a major university, along with a string of well-received books that, along with your articles, are cited by scholars who follow you is what notability consists of for history professors. More can quite easily be written about how his work has influenced the field by anyone with the inclination to do so who can access JSTOR and other caches of scholarly book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it helps, the academic's:

h-index is 11.
g-index is 28.
total number of citations is 812.

Don't solely use these figures for voting: they are only indicators of significance under WP:NACADEMICS#1. Esquivalience ^t 23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- His CV (cited as a reference) lists large numbers of publications, smany by reputabale academic publishers. Terhe should be no question of doeing anything else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inadequate article for highly notable academic author. According to WorldCat, his principal book, The forgotten Christians of Hangzhou is held in 1700 libraries; The great encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800 is held in 1491 (and translated into Chinese and into Korean) ; Drowning girls in China : female infanticide since 1650 in 663; Leibniz and Confucianism, the search for accord in 608 (and translated into Chinese) ; Curious land : Jesuit accommodation and the origins of Sinology in 546 (and translated into Chinese); The spirit and the flesh in Shandong, 1650-1785 in 266 (and translated into Chinese) ; Western queers in China : flight to the land of Oz in 223; The Chinese rites controversy : its history and meaning in 149 ^[1]. I've copied this sentence into the article. There aren multiple reviews for most of these listed in Worldcat [59]. Meets WP author because of the reviews; meets WP:PROF because clearly an authority in his field. h value is almost meaninglessmeaningless in the humanities ,as our article on it explains. it only works in those fields of science that depend upon journal articles and in which many people are publishing. Nonetheless, 812 citations to his works overall is quite high for this subject. . DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Martín Sámano[edit]

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

Does not meet notability under WP:BIO. All references currently provided in the article simply link to Samano's work (presumably because the creating user, Jmsamano, may have had a COI in writing this article). A search returns primarily links to Samano's work and IMDB-like sites. There does not seem to be any significant third-party coverage of the subject. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source One Television[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only references in the article right now are to the channel's own site and related content. A search returns no reliable, third-party sources that could make this subject meet WP:N. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-per nom Wgolf (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'-actually I think a redirect to something else the more I look at it-not sure to what though. Suggestions? Wgolf (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay redirect to Faith TV. Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo Kaan[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable, nonsensical, and mostly conjecture-ridden pablum. Quis separabit? 19:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G3) by MelanieN –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wynn[edit]

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

As it is, does not meet WP:GNG. For a person who allegedly owns so much and has done so much, there really ought to be more sources. There are a lot of claims to significance here, but none are backed up by sources. ubiquity (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why it pays to stay anonymus?

Becoming a newly minted millionaire comes at a personal price. You lose your anonymity. . Friends, family and random acquaintances alike, will try to get a piece of this windfall. Everyone is different. Some people will enjoy the spotlight, others won't. .. A lot of rich people come to realise latter in their lives, that there were better off if they stayed anonymous and avoid fights between family members after they passed way. Other reasons should also been taken in consideration: personal and family security, political reasons, etc…. Becoming a rich and famous person comes with another price: no privacy, or very little...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in my searches I found a couple of trivial mentions and a bunch of false positives (including a professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado, a musical band - "Thomas Wynn & The Believers" - and the victim of a firearm) but nothing substantial or significant about this businessman. Fails GNG. Cavarrone 12:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Wynn "is reportedly building a private museum for some of his artwork on his Greenwich property. In the winter of 2005, it became known that in 1999 Wynn had bought Edvard Munch's Madonna. Reportedly, this was for $11.5 million." Meanwhile, apparently in a parallel universe, Steven A. Cohen "is reportedly building a private museum for some of his artwork on his Greenwich property. In the winter of 2005, it became known that in 1999 Cohen had bought Edvard Munch's Madonna. Reportedly, this was for $11.5 million." In fact, Wynn is pretty much copied from the well-referenced Cohen article, with a few changes here and there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged for speedy deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Inspection 12. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Shad[edit]

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

Non-notable individual musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Early life section is a copy-vio/copy-paste from Inspection 12 with references about the band, not the subject. Death section makes little sense, and is uncited. Suggest redirect to band. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this tragic story of young death into Inspection 12.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criizter[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. The sources used in the article all appear to be social-media based and written by the subject or a fan. A search on Google did not reveal any reliable sources discussing the subject in depth (or at all even). SQGibbon (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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