< 29 March	31 March >

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey (elasticity)[edit]

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

Not a notable phenomenon... a minor comment in a minor publication, and not much more. UtherSRG (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Something between an essay and a spot of trivia, not sure what; but definitely not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a random fact that belongs elsewhere, at worst (given the poor-quality references) simply wrong. We don't reference biology articles with things from 1839 or 1888, and having cartilage is not unique to monkeys. -- 120.17.127.184 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after having a WTF moment (what is "behave in an elastic way"?), I guess this is some pseudo-philosophical essay about... monkeys (?). The keyword being "essay". Tigraan (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some articles I spend hours wrestling with should it be in wikipedia or not. this is not one of those articles, easy delete call for me. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any quality content on the subject could be incorporated into existing articles on monkey anatomy or behavior, but I see nothing here that merits such. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i'll endeavour to look for additional material of the anatomical aspect for possible future inclusion to the main article. Whalestate (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if information about the subject was notable, it could be included in Monkey; however, I disagree that such information should be included even there. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable? Not in a million years. AlbinoFerret 18:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew JC Jackson[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both a lack of sources and the fact that the goodwill games are not a top ranked international competition (the year he was in them was their last occurance due to low attention on them).John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of sources indicating notability... Neutrality^talk 23:31, 29 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, JodyB_talk 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I couldn't find any sources except for mirrors of our article. That isn't a good sign. AgnosticAphid talk 23:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no notability. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 00:00, 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 merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 18:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy McKinney (baseball)[edit]

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

does not meet GNG, WP:BASE/N, WP:NCOLLATH. WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements for baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might already meet GNG (in addition to the articles already in the article, these are not: [1][2][3][4][5]). If not kept, a merge per Spanneraol would be best, not deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Mobishgu. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 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, JodyB_talk 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge doesnt need a separate article, Chicago Cubs minor league players is a good location to place anything of note. AlbinoFerret 18:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Kind of a no-brainer here, enough routine sourcing to be worth adding to the minor league player list, not enough to pass GNG for own article. Wizardman 15:06, 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, default to keep. I can't see the discussion below converging towards either a keep or a delete consensus within another week so I'm closing this as NC. There are calls for this to be deleted as a recreation, but the history of the article (AfD deletion → refund → draft → move back to mainspace 2 months after closure of the previous AfD) precludes such a claim and this AfD should be treated as a fresh AfD of a fully rewritten article. Der yck C. 07:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country Party of Australia (founded 2014)[edit]

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia). Why anyone would think this was OK to start a few months later without it passing a deletion review I have no idea. Either way, it's still WP:TOOSOON. It's unregistered (generally the benchmark for party notability), it's almost certainly never going to be registered under this name, practically all of the coverage is surrounding its founding. This is also not a new thing; people try to get "country parties" going all the time. Frickeg (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, no. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't !vote in the earlier discussion but I remember having a quick look at the article, and I would definitely have gone for deletion at that stage. The party certainly wouldn't pass any notability guidelines specific to political parties (no registration and no elections contested), but I think BDD's work in expanding the article pushes it over the line when it comes to the GNG. Two non-trivial articles from the ABC, three of the same from The Land, and one each from Queensland Country Life and Farm Weekly is a lot more than many AEC-registered parties, and definitely significant coverage in my book. The ABC is definitely an WP:RS, and I'd strongly argue the same of the three rural publications. I'm not a regular reader of them by any means, but I have come across them on several occasions (for Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia purposes), and I would suggest their quality meets or even exceeds the standards of the capital city dailies – they of course don't have the readership level, but they're on a completely different level to the free community rags you get in the metro area. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh, someone is reviving the Country Party? Again? But this time, there is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, so I view this as meeting the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: So far, I haven't seen a Delete rationale that comes within a country mile of policy. I'm not seeing a single guideline or policy that says political parties have to be registered to qualify for articles, or disqualifying articles for being same-old-same-old. (Never mind that "yeah, no" and "it needs to go" are the sorts of rationales we see from sockpuppet anon IPs.) This meets the GNG. It's got substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Period. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are the sorts of rationales you get from Australians who actually understand the background and know that this is probably the fourth use of that name for a loose political grouping this year. In Australia, we have the National Party which is a conservative political party that claims to be "from the country" (rural, bush, etc) and used to be called the Country Party. Problem is, plenty of people don't agree that is what they represent and there is a culture of independents (non-aligned candidates) running against the National Party because the largest opposition party (the Labor Party) don't do as well in the country. A few times a year, someone proposes to bring those independents together as the "country party" (a kick in the pants to the once-Country Party, now National Party). I'm not even sure all the sources are talking about the same iteration of that nonsense proposal. This isn't a real thing but every time someone suggests it, they get coverage in rural press because it is more interesting than cattle prices (actually, probably not, but they have the room to run both). This is not a "revival" or a "party" or even a "proposal" - it's just the latest brain-fart from someone who thinks they can organise a bunch of fiercely independent politicians into some loosely (no-very-cleverly-named) collective. There is nothing here to cover and we'll be back in 3 months when someone proposes a slightly different version of the same thing. The announcement wouldn't even pass WP:EVENT. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a big fat "So what?" There are a lot of articles out there based on things I think are stupid, but I don't get to unilaterally delete the Kim Kardashian article just because I think she's a media whore who's the 2000s' answer to Zha Zha Gabor. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I say the subject was stupid, but if you want to paraphrase me more accurately, the fact that we're covering it is stupid. There's one-day coverage but this still fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT and WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This should have been speedied as a recreation of a previously deleted article, but since it is receiving keep votes I'll again point out why this should be deleted. They are not registered with either the Australian Electoral Commission or any state and territory electoral commission, lacking even the extraordinarily low bar of 500 members (Australia has something like thirty federally registered parties). There is no evidence that they will ever be registered, and are particularly likely to not ever be registered under this name due to legislation around party names. They're a bunch of dudes intending to start a rural political party who sent out a press release announcing that intention that got picked up, on one occasion, by three rural-focused magazines and have subsequently gone nowhere. I am a staunch inclusionist on actual political parties, and if and when they actually make it to becoming a registered party, I will ardently argue the article should be kept; until such time as they actually achieve that, they're just another bunch of random dudes in a shed claiming to be a political party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The GNG is not a bright-line rule. Getting two or three news articles written about you online doesn't mean you're guaranteed a Wikipedia article forever and a day. So much is clear from the statement in WP:GNG itself that the guideline establishes a presumption of notability. Not a guarantee. Here, even if the presumption is established, it is rebutted. It is rebutted by the fact that it is a micro-micro-party with no formal status and a handful of members. And that the media coverage of its inauguration was fleeting at best. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. The candidates have less press coverage than I'd expect for an independent with any chance of getting elected. The group couldn't find enough people to nominate a group that gets an "above the line" box on the ballot paper so their How-To-Vote leaflet includes voting below-the-line for all of their candidates and at least one other to make a formal optional preferential vote. If they do pull a significant vote on Saturday (definitely if one is elected), I'm prepared to revisit this assessment; otherwise WP:TOOSOON to tell if they will ever become notable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't strongly disagree Scott, but if one of them is elected it would be as an "independent", not as a member of this non-party. They would still have to formally register the party after the election and then seek leave to join it as a Parliamentarian. Until that point it remains a non-party without an elected representative and nothing but a day's worth of coverage in local rural press. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with this, for the record, but the thing is 0.0001% likely to actually happen so we needn't discuss it till then. Frickeg (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, which part? (Not that it matters - feel free to take it to my talk page). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said "revisit" not automatically reverse my assessment. i don't expect it to become an issue. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on; I think we're all on the same page (broadly). Ha ha. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Country Party-endorsed independent outpolls Labor in Murray (18.8% on first preferences with 62.3% counted). Third in Wagga Wagga (10.0%, beating the Greens) and fourth in Northern Tablelands (0.4% behind the Greens). IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So best-case scenario is that one of their informally endorsed candidates runs second and another runs third. Endorsed candidates who lose aren't considered notable, surely the same applies to unendorsed or "informally endorsed" candidates. There is not a single member of the self-declared "party" anywhere close to being considered notable. Even if they were, the notability of their "party" (of which they are not members) would still be questionable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Dalton (Mrs 18% in Murray) lists her website as the Country Party's website on her Facebook campaign page, features "Endorsed by the Country Party of Australia" on her campaign posters, and has been described as running a "Country Party branded campaign" in rural media. I'm quite curious as to why you've chosen to use scare quotes around the word "party" and claim that their candidates "are not members" of the party for which they are running (???). Anyway, my point is that any standard of notability that says yes to these sorts of parties simply because they're registered, but no to a party that can outpoll major parties in two electorates (on its first go), is ridiculous. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't "scare quotes" in that context (at all), it was an acknowledgement that while they have called themselves a "party", in actual fact, no such entity has been registered and so there are no membership lists to join. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting then that her hashtag is #Dalton4Change, not #DaltonYourCountryParty or #DaltonCountryPartyofAustralia. Most of the local news clippings she's posted to her Facebook page call her independent candidate and don't mention this group. She does not meet the Wikipedia politician criteria to have an article about her, so there are still no real inbound links to this article from other articles. I can be sympathetic to the cause without believing the entity is worthy of an article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This group has actually been fairly unusual in the way they've endorsed candidates - they've been more of a "we like this person and think you should vote for them" rather than "this person is running on our ticket" with a few, Dalton included. See here, and here (where it's called "Country Party branded"). The Cyclists Party actually also endorsed both Dalton and Mailler (clearly after negotiations - and called them "independents" while the upper house ticket was "Country Party"). Funnell here calls himself very clearly an "independent"; Dalton has also described herself as a "Country Party-aligned independent". This is in contrast to other unregistered parties like the Socialist Equality Party or even the tiny non-notable Communist League. In this case I think it's far from certain whether Dalton and Funnell are even members of the Country Party. Frickeg (talk) 22:30, 30 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, JodyB_talk 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content is certainty newsworthy so I would recommend the editors who made the article look at making an article on WikiNews about the party and it would be a lot more appropriate, as for an Enyclapedic entry? I think it misses the mark (today at least) for that notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until such time as a member is elected, it is a non entity. Drs002 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. This is, plain and simple, the sort of material that any encyclopedia pretending to be the "sum of human knowledge" should include. File this argument under the banner of our policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia) if you will. Think about it though — I'm right. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I've always appreciated your point of view here and I think you do great work on a lot of minor political parties (and pretty much everything you write I would keep). And I think your goal with this philosophy is laudable, but I just don't think it's practical. I mean, how do you define a "party"? Is it the joke group formed by twenty-five uni students - which has membership lists and a whole (satirical) constitution, and runs candidates for the student union? Is it the loose groupings that register to run for local council? Is it the guy sitting in his basement who swears he has at least a hundred members - or at least, he has emails from people who want to join, and that counts (and then, under this approach, he gets an article too)? Consider this a question from someone who is genuinely curious about how this proposed approach would work. Frickeg (talk) 00:48, 5 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Forlandsaas[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that Mr. Forlandsaas is Not a professional footballer. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. In any case, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG, and fails WP:NFOOTY as not played for fully-professional team. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his name is Førlandsås. Anyway, appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *Neutral I work with the webmaster of his personal website. There has been guit many hits to his website in the search engine over the past years where his name + wikipedia has been searched for. I am aware he has not played in the biggest leagues in the world yet, but I seen pages of other similar footballers here - some them might have been deleted, but I dont think all of them.

I am very interested in football, I do know that you can play and earn a living of football in many lower leagues in among other countries like England, Spain, Italy, Germany etc. Lower then 3rd and 4th league. He has had a very international career from Australia - Spain doing it. But yes, like a normal job not as a millionaire I suppose. There are many TV interviews / reports etc on him on his YouTube channel for example, but I did not want to add personal website links and references to his Wiki page. I have not been editing on Wiki for some years, forgot my old log in details. So it might look a little messy at the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinMarch18 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nee preme naa pranam[edit]

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

Non notable film-as well as too soon. Kind of looks like a brief advertisement with no major refs even. Wgolf (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (at the kindest) being TOO SOON. I gave the article a face-lift, and while apparently its music and film trailer are out there, I cannot determine if or when the film will release and it currently is not covered by reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON at best; no good redirect target. Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 16:05, 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 redirect to Ted Haggard#Scandal and removal from job. Der yck C. 06:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jones (personal trainer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Jones was completely unknown until he became involved with the Ted Haggard sex scandal. He's been non-notable since then. He published a book about the scandal that was widely ignored (#1.3 million currently at Amazon) and won't help him pass WP:AUTHOR. Was in AfD once, but nobody even mentioned BLP1E. Possibly redirect the name to the article on Haggard. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Ted Haggard#Scandal and removal from job as this all he is really known for. Mangoe (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mangoe. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healthpoint Ltd[edit]

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

Non-notable, does not meet WP:CORP; was one of 16 winners of a local (Lancashire) business award in 2013 (see here). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: there doesn't seem to any coverage of the company's activities in reliable sources; does not pass GNG/CORP. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. WP:NOTABLE Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:35, 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. Nakon 02:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajah[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. I added it's first ref but couldn't find more and not saying that source is a reliable source (and almost word for word this article, possible copyvio or mirror). I could find no valid redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 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, Nakon 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a language link to ar.wikipedia. -Arb. (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes, but it has no more info than the English language one, Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 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, Davewild (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No provided evidence of significance. Pax 00:27, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLC (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one secondary source listed even approaches reliable; the rest are the usual kpop gossip/promo machine. This group first record was just released 3 days ago. They've only been on one TV show as a group and it was self-produced on their agency's own youtube channel. The user who created this article frequently creates articles for non-notable singers, albums, and songs. This is WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOO SOON, etc. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll expand the article however the reason why some sources are unreliable is because most sources that talk about Kpop are Korean and the only webpages who translate Kpop content are gossip news (like Allkpop) if you want I will include Korean news sites talking about them however it will be in Korean. The group are new but they will release more music so it would be useless to delete it now and in a few months someone has to create it again. (User:4minute lover (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not useless at all for someone have to recreate the article, either. Always best to wait until reliable sources indicating notability are found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep first article (improvement article request) is enough and no need to delete (Pikhmikh (talk) 10:44, 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, Davewild (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete / move it Put it back in the drafts section would be my first choice. While I do like the group and believe they will gain the notability needed for this page to be made eventually.... Right now I think it is to early for them to have their own page if the sources are not there yet. If you need to do more work on it to bring it up to the minmum standards then it's not ready yet for the mainspace.Peachywink (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per Peachywink. Fails WP:BAND for now. WP:TOOSOON at best. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep article is still expanding and more and more info is becoming available. They only debuted recently so it will be a bit before we have more sources. RatiziAngelou^contribs 22:20, 5 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 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Artist Soap[edit]

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

BLP with non-RS. sourcing issues fails WP:ARTIST. Adding lots of non-RS just highlights WP:TOOSOON
Second concern from contested PROD "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." Widefox; talk 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article Street art doesn't have any information on Polish street art ( which is easy to find, a quick search brought up stories from Business Insider and CNN on the street art scene ) my recommendation is to delete this article, and put any wikiworthy information into the street art article, if enough builds up, spin out Street art in Poland and if that gets so crowded that we need a article just for soap. let's make it happen, as is I don't see any notability for this particular article ( couldn't find any 3rd party refs in a search ) and the wikilandscape doesn't support the idea either. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON here. Lots of the refs are blogspam-ish. Neutrality^talk 16:13, 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 02:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textbase[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the reference from Armand might be substantial, but given that there's not much else on this group apart from blog reviews and the like, I'm not at all convinced. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article sourced to a review site. Does not pass notability. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source searches are not providing adequate coverage to qualify an article for this topic, relative to WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 6 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 delete. Speedy G11 as political advertisement DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Blaney[edit]

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

Does not meet wiki politician standards. Wgolf (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the shortfalls in this page. I have resolved both concerns you mentioned, by inserting two citations and linking other pages to this page. Let me know if you see other problems. -GrahamHMay

Delete GrahamHMay, the main issue is whether she meets WP:NOTABILITY; principally WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. I couldn't find any evidence that she does yet (perhaps WP:TOOSOON). Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - she has done some important work in the past (independent of her candidacy), and is currently a very prominent member of our region (which I am from). People deserve to have a relatively impartial source to get information about where she comes from and what she stands for. Furthermore, if others have information to add, they deserve a forum to do so. I have populated the page with five references now, to demonstrate the point. -GrahamHMay

Delete per nom. Fails POLITICIAN, BIO, GNG, etc. No doubt a credit to her community, but Wikipedia is not here to provide a forum. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as being notable in an encyclopedic sense I couldn't find much in the way of 3rd party references to support the claim. The coverage from the article references is really temporary. Whenever there are elections happening good coverage is allways needed at Wikinews to synthesize multiple reports into a single narrative. but as far as encyclopedic? it doesn't meet that threshold for me. but who knows what the future holds, she may end up the president of Canada and be notable in the future but for today, delete. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks more promotional that notable. Sources do not really provide anything of note. AlbinoFerret 20:20, 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. Nakon 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Childs[edit]

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

Non notable author, Fails WP:AUTHOR & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete while there are sources [6] I can't find enough of them to justify an article. Willing to reconsider if someone can.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A real guy, but not seeing the in-depth, significant, coverage. Neutrality^talk 16:14, 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnail Singh (referee)[edit]

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

I don't see how football referees are inherently notable. Perhaps if he refereed English premier league which he hasn't. Sources provided aren't really third party as they're all football related. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several of the references cited are now broken links, although most of these seem to be football list-based rather than interviews or other ways of establishing notability. As things stand, the subject of this article doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG.Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy for notability at WP:NFOOTBALL did previously mention referees (as match officials) until January 2015, with the requirement having been to have officiated at a Tier 1 international fixture. However, following a discussion at Referees- criteria for notability, the reference to match officials was removed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't officiated at a high-enough level, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Refs added - An ambassador for the Football Association, recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the FA and the first Sikh to referee in English football.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the first Sikh to referee English football does not advance notability, so we now create an article for the first Jew to referee English football? LibStar (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in a sport where the exclusion of non-white, non-English people has been to subject of much discussion, yes the first Sikh to referee is of great importance. To introduce the first Jew into this is merely irrelevant.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the lifetime award is not a notable award, in fact found no coverage of this award besides primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) - Really? Really??--Egghead06 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so by your logic then being an ambassador for the FA is of no importance either or maybe this is just another deletion discussion where nobody bothered to look for references!!?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref added - refereed at international level.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that source reliable? It incorrectly says Singh was born in England. Also it is highly unusual for a referee to officiate an international game without ever refereeing in the highest national league. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a reliable source to say he was born in India? At the moment there is a deadlink which attempts to support him being born in India yet he is later described as "of Indian descent". Which is correct? Do you have a reliable source to support your view that it is unusual to ref at international level without refereeing at the highest national league level or is that your opinion? --Egghead06 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Egghead06. Obviously notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article itself still has a lack of high-quality references but there are a few details that have emerged since this article was nominated that lead me to think that the subject of the article might meet WP:GNG. I don't think the "lifetime achievement award" is a notable award in itself (and it is not an award bestowed by the FA, rather a promotional vehicle which was a joint venture organised by a company called "Inventive sports" and so of course some recipients are mentioned in newspapers, although I can't find any newspaper article that gives more than a passing mention to Singh's award; it does seem that there was more coverage of the 2013 awards than the inaugural 2012 event). I don't think it likely that Singh ever made it onto FIFA's men's referees list, also I don't think the friendly international game that he refereed in 2011 is likely to have been authorised as a tier 1 international match by FIFA. It does however appear that the FA have been keen to acknowledge his involvement and promote his profile, attempting to rectify diversity issues affecting English football. But, as I already said, there is hardly any newspaper coverage that has emerged to describe aspects, including any FA ambassador role, which is a still real problem here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:11, 30 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, Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked in here merely out of curiosity, knowing nothing about football. This is rather a nice, pretty well referenced, brief biography. It's a whole lot better than I expected. He has indeed received coverage of a somewhat substantial nature and dealing with a variety of aspects of his life to make all this into more than a scorecard. And regarding the (rhetorical) question about whether being the first Sikh refereee advances notability, then maybe in itself it doesn't. However, if sources write about the matter then indeed it does count. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 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 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of East-West Thought[edit]

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

Article was deleted as a copyvio several times, now re-created as a one-line"article" with a long list of external links. Most of the latter are press releases, postings of articles published in the journal, library listings, and such. None of them constitute both independent and in-depth coverage. Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fails WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, so delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator explained. Neutrality^talk 16:16, 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 delete. Nakon 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Carey Hurley[edit]

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

Appears to fails WP:NACADEMICS, and sourcing mostly appears to be routine and not help pass WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Geogene (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She is not tenured. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability either. Agricola44 (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete subject does not appear to pass NACADEMIC and sources in article do not appear to indicate general notability. Pinging @Alpha Quadrant: who accepted this at AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 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. Nakon 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrow (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film planned for release next month. No indication of notability per WP:NFILM, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Article's creator evidently realized this, and attempted use of fake references. Not much left following cleanup: at best, WP:TOOSOON. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, no independent sources. Geogene (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Production:(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)

Soft delete Apparently a rough version this screened in Houston in 2014. The finished version is only now being scheduled to make the circuit of horror film festivals, so we may hear more about it. Until then, a bit TOO SOON.... but it's close, very close. Your Houston News relates how the final version was completed in July 2014.[7] and then in August 2014, Houston Press shared that the film (they had watched) was good but the (original) poster was boring.[8] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what that means by that bit having been written by someone named "Community Reports". It looks like a forwarded press release. Geogene (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much as we both suggest a deletion, but I'll WP:AGF that "what that means" is that a small community newspaper chose to report community news as "Community Reports", rather than under some unknown or anonymous byline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defiantly Too Soon. 750 words, four questionable sources on an unreleased movie. AlbinoFerret 20:28, 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. Given that he's now appeared for his country, a lot of the objections raised to the existence of this article have been removed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ikonomidis[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 because he is signed to Lazio and has been called to the Australian national team. Since he has not played any actual matches for either of them, this is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT, and in the absence of significant coverage, the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for now, rather than keep for now. Obviously created WP:TOOSOON by someone keen to highlight his "prodigious" but as yet untested talent. He'll likely be notable in the future, perhaps in the very near future. But we don't create articles about non-notable people and then wait and hope they will become notable. We wait until they are notable and then create the article. This was simply done the wrong way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources, but you guys have a much better handle on the wiki meta language than me so it seems you'll get your way. Cheers. - Paladisious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious (talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - if such coverage exists (considered to be coverage of him and not simply WP:ROUTINE signing announcements and the like) then that would most certainly be worth considering. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Very easy to restore if/when he becomes notable in the future. Giant Snowman 10:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to a rash of article about him after he was selected for Australia there is Gatt, Ray (3 August 2013), "Teen winger driven to succeed", The Australian. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article should be sand-boxed until a time when he is deemed notable. IJA (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with [9], [10], [11] in addition to 2013 article mentioned above. Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 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, Sandstein 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: This discussion was closed as "keep", but is reopened and relisted per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 19. Sandstein 17:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some off-site canvassing must have been going on – he's come on as a substitute.[12] (Thank you, Paladisious}. Thincat (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: I'll remind you that serious allegations such as canvassing which lack evidence are personal attacks, and point out that all comments above were made before the source you cited was published. I invite you to either provide evidence of misconduct or strike your remarks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I should have included a smiley. Or used the convention at WP:RD to put facetious remarks in small print. Thincat (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as nominator. Now that he has played for Australia, the article clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonomidis has just played his first senior Socceroos game, and now meets WP:FOOTBALL. This discussion can now be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paladisious, please do not remove deletion templates from articles while a discussion is ongoing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? He's had a senior international cap now, and reliable source for this has been added to the article. He meets WP:NFOOTBALL, case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then an administrator will come and close it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now passes WP:NFOOTY and so should be kept. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can probably now be speedily kept, him playing this morning for the national team changes everything and means the grey area has entirely been removed. Daniel 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as people have mentioned, he featured for Australia's Senior National Team against Macedonia this morning in a FIFA Sanctioned Friendly. There can be no argument now. I had strong sympathy to holding fire prior on this, but there can be few better ways of signalling your arrival to senior professional football than appearing for your nation's National Team in a FIFA-sanctioned friendly. Also, I've perused the pages of other young pro players over the years and I've seen others kept on for far longer for far less, like a solitary League Cup match. Evidence for Ikonomidis' NT appearance:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-31/teenager-ikonomidis-delighted-to-make-socceroos-debut/6361430

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/socceroos/macedonia-v-socceroos-chris-ikonomidis-and-tarek-elrich-delighted-to-make-roos-debuts/story-e6frf4l3-1227285941004 Xfiles82 (talk) 11:50, 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. Discounting the blocked socks, there is clear consensus to delete. Nakon 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living Hell (band)[edit]

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

Major COI issue here-band members have the names of the contributors. Not sure about notability either Wgolf (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This band is notable per wikipedia guidelines

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.

Furthermore - I don't see a COI here? Because of the picture? I don't think that qualifies?

Thanks,

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI is due to the fact one of the major contributors has the same name as one of the band members. I actually don't mind if a obscure band, obscure film, ect have pages to be honest, but this is a bit much.Wgolf (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just think marking it for deletion is a bit much. This and the other article aren't promoting anything. The bands releases are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IP, there do not seem to be two notable musicians within this band. Who is the 2nd one, I only see Craig Mack being asserted as notable? I can't see how this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a redirect to Craig Walendziak. Coi is pretty clear: WP:SPA creator and an WP:SPA contributor with 'Craig Mack' in his username. You've commented here as an IP. Are you the same user as the two I've just named? Are you connected to the band or any of its members? Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn-also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Follow Through (Band)-same issue. Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they definitely meet the: *** Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).*** requirement. 66.161.14.35 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see this band satisfying WP:NBAND based on members, coverage, or releases. I didn't find much beyond a staff review at punknews.org ([13]) and a couple of news items on Blabbermouth.net ([14], [15]). --Michig (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michig. Geogene (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep easily meets the "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement.Both labels have Wikipedia pages.Both releases are listed. 76.119.12.233 (talk)

Comment-also adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Walendziak to this. Wgolf (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page. I did so because I like the band. I was happy to see the singer was writing movies. If you need two records from a notable indie label Living Hell meets this requirement. Popular band for their genre. Dilbert Grapes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Michig. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:25, 3 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. Discounting the blocked socks, there is clear consensus to delete. Nakon 02:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Through (Band)[edit]

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

Band that is pretty much a huge COI give then the band member name Craig Mack is one of the articles contributors. Not sure about notability as well Wgolf (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf - Follow Through were on two of the largest indie straight edge labels ever (Revelation and Smorgasbord) and are listed in their discography.

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Really, a big punk band.

GB,

Tim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear coi, doesn['t meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree **Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).** easily meets that requirement. 66.161.14.35 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Boleyn. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP clearly meets the "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement. This band actually has a large punk following. Big straightedge band in the 90's. 76.119.12.233 (talk)

Comment-also adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Walendziak to this. Wgolf (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page. I did so because I like the band. I was happy to see the singer was writing movies. If you need two records from a notable indie label Follow Through meets this requirement. Popular band for their genre. Dilbert Grapes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. AlbinoFerret 20:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlbinoFerret Albino - how does it not meet this reuquirment? ** Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).** Revelation Records and Smorgasbord are two large independent labels - both have their own Wikipedia page? Can we try and be consistent here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbert Grapes (talk • contribs) 20:46, 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. Nakon 02:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anmol Chand[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm from Fiji and this person is far from notable, infact no Bhajan singer in Fiji is notable enough to have their own wikipedia article. I feel the creator is a paid-editor for Procera Music and 2 other articles he created (Malumu ni Tobu kei Naivaukura, Junior Michael Chand Mahabir) are not notable either (the latter was deleted by an admin), infact Procera Music is not notable either as its a very small recording company in Lautoka. I'd advise the user to create this article on the Fiji Hindi wikipedia if he wishes as their notability is only limited to certain parts of Fiji and are virtually unknown outside of Fiji..--Ste moc 01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources only mention Anmol Chand in passing so I don't see how this meets our basic criterion for inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 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. Nakon 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universum Studio[edit]

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

This article about a German distribution studio was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax (G3). I declined speedy deletion because, if it is a hoax, it is not blatant and obvious; it has an elaborate website (from which I gather it is a BluRay distributor) and it has a detailed and consistent presence on IMDb. The user who applied the G3 tag challenged my decision on my talk page. I then looked a little further and found a couple of mentions at third-party sites. [16] [17] Last August the article was deleted as G3, after being tagged as a hoax by the same user who tagged it this time. I am not convinced it is a hoax; that can be discussed here; but in any case I don't believe the subject is notable and I recommend deletion per WP:CORP and WP:GNG. MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The article last August was created by an editor who was recently blocked for socking. The current article was created by an editor with a similar name, and I have suggested they also be looked at as a possible sock. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article ist a hoax. When you visit the Website, there is only given a mobile phone number, no telephone of fax. And the "Founder" and "Key man" has an "outlook.de" email. Its also told that the company ist registered in the German Trade Register (Amtsgericht Zweibrücken), but on the official website https://www.handelsregister.de the Universum Studio cannot be found, although in Germany every GmbH must be registererd at the trade Register. The Websites MelanieN found are about de:Universum Film, a real film company, not Universum Studio. --JLKiel (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Last April the article was twice deleted and (if I am reading the German correctly) salted at the German pedia. [18] --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page creator has a number of other hoaxes which have been deleted. This appears to be a more elaborate one. I can't substantiate the existence of this company or any of the listed films in any secondary source. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Recommend that the title be salted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is almost certainly a hoax. Having dealt with the hoaxer (including their numerous sockpuppets) before, I know that their activity here also involves astroturfing IMDb with similar bogus information. There are zero reliable sources that the subject of this article exists. I agree with JLKiel in that the film studio of the similar name exists, but this company does not. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:14, 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 send for cleanup (yes, this is an option since the old days). I think everyone is in agreement that the article needs additional sources and work, so let's get it done. If that doesn't work out, the keep arguments will be significantly weakened in any future AfD or merge/redirect discussions. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In short, WP:RS. I have nominated this page because it has no citations, and it appears that the information is taken directly from the "SOJCs" own webpage - i.e. is just promotional garbage. Also lacking WP:Notability, as we don't have a page (or need one) for every journalism department in the world. FarahPanda (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd be happy to help adding citations and making the tone more neutral. As for notability, SOJC is considered by some to be one of the top journalism schools in the United States and certainly in Oregon.^[1] ChaseKR (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Best Journalism Schools at U.S. Colleges and Universities". College Media Matters.

Keep w/ Reliable Sources. I agree with Chase, but the source he quotes isn't very reliable. It's a blog, from what I can tell - let me know if I'm wrong, Chase. I did a quick search through google news and various other pages, and I couldn't find anything that supports notability. But I could absolutely be wrong. If anyone finds some reliable sources (e.g. Chronicle of Higher Ed, AEJMC, etc.), alongside Wikipedia pages for notable alumni and faculty, the argument for notability is easily met. I can't do that work, though: Full disclosure, I've graduated from the SOJC, so it's hard to tell what is actual fact, and what is PR bs coming from what can often be an echo chamber about how "excellent" we are. If I don't see anything in the next couple of days, I'll have to change my vote to delete. But let's work on this puzzle together!
- On a side note, Fara: The entry does help with some other entries that you're working on (e.g. Carol Stabile). People have different philosophies for editing Wikipedia, but mine is generally to help build up the encyclopedia rather than delete things that could use improvement. That's the purpose of the stub tag that is admittedly way over due on this page. I don't mean to be condescending, or to tell you how to do what you want, but to suggest a different way of looking at editing. Either way, thanks for being so involved! Great to see new Wikipedians coming out of the FemTechNet project!! Thebrycepeake (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it is a blog and its methodology is pretty questionable, but it is tied to Associated Collegiate Press. Surprisingly enough, there isn't much in the way of journalism program rankings so we need to work in a broader sense of notability. Thanks for being honest about the conflict of interest! ChaseKR (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. This article needs work but should not be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:36, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now, pending cleanup and citations. This needs work, which I will try to do. And I'll just declare up front that I attended (and dropped out of) the UO J School and at that time found the current interim dean to be one of my favorite professors. Valfontis (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Not to pile on the nominator because this article has been terrible for over 6 years, but remember that AfD is not cleanup. Valfontis (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you @Valfontis and @thebrycepeake. Someone that talked to our class about wikipedia editing said that if I linked to articles that were not good, people were more likely to delete my entry unless I nominated that one for deletion. Are you saying that's not the case? Also, I'm confused by @Animalparty 's post. can you explain to me what a template is?FarahPanda (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi @FarahPanda:. I think the "what gets deleted and why" is more nuanced than what you have been told but we shouldn't have that discussion here, feel free to move the discussion to my talk page. A template is a bit of code that helps some processes in the wiki and there are many different kinds. In the case AnimalParty mentions, they are saying that if this article is redirected to the main UO article, we can put a template on the page showing that an article can likely be rewritten that would stand alone. It places the article in Category:Redirects with possibilities. Does that explain? Personally, however, I think we can fix the article now. Valfontis (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University_of_Oregon#School_of_Journalism_and_Communication. Full disclosure, I have never attended the University of Oregon and am not a journalism major. I don't doubt that the School exists, nor that it has some successful alumni, but Notability is not inherited. If there aren't secondary sources that describe in depth the college, beyond "it exists" and "X once ranked it as one of the (50, 100, 1,000) best journalism schools in (Eugene/Oregon/the U.S./the world)" (N.B. This top 50 list is simply one person's subjective opinion), then to prevent undue or promotional coverage, the existing paragraph that basically identical to University of Oregon#School of Journalism and Communication should simply be redirected there. To those that want to "build the encyclopedia" (in compliance with policy) there is the ((R with possibility)) template, should there eventually be enough well-sourced, secondary information to justify and expand a stand-alone article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. One of the best 50 in the US is not especially selective. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator failed to search for sources, which is required. Had they, there are plenty as almost any college at a university of this size is going to meet the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 7 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 02:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinson Real Estate Group[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of this company. Only three sources, of which 2 are over 15 years old. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the two 1998 references for a company started in 2000 are slightly obscure to establish notability. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL. Geogene (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely unremarkable company.TheLongTone (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. AlbinoFerret 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to be more than a run of the mill firm. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 5 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 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Software Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP as non notable company Flat Out let's discuss it 12:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only finding passing mentions and a few press releases in source searches. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Nothing found to show notability. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 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. Nakon 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Heretics Conference[edit]

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

There is some coverage and notable people are involved, but I'm not convinced it's enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Tagged for notability 7 years ago by Deb, still unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:1E conference. Pax 18:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. AlbinoFerret 20:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 6 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. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Clayton (theologian)[edit]

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

Can't find any independent reliable sources about this person. Sam Walton (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep holds an endowed/named chair at Claremont, so he automatically passes WP:PROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of coverage. I put "Philip Clayton" + Claremont into a google news search, and came up with ppages of substantive stuff. Page could certainly use expansion. But notability is not in question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, could you give examples of some of this coverage? Sam Walton (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the holder of a named chair and author of a number of academic works. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the necessary criterion is satisfied. (the actual notability is as an expert in his subject, but we regard the named chair as a convenient shortcut, since it's a reliable indication of that). DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Holder of a named academic chair. Carrite (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:PROF: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Does anyone actually have any reliable sources to use in this article? If not, saying "has a named chair" carries little weight. Sam Walton (talk) 09:13, 5 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) –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolmen Press[edit]

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

There are claims to WP:NOTABILITY but not substantiated. Seems promotional. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hutton, Clare; Walsh, Patrick, eds. (2011). The Oxford History of the Irish Book, Volume V: The Irish Book in English, 1891-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 591. ISBN 0199249113.
  The subject is discussed in Chapter 25 of this book. The book notes on page 11:
  The failings of state-sponsored attempts to control the direction of book culture through censorship of Irish language publishing were obvious. But for the shining exception represented by the Dolmen Press (established in 1951 and discussed by Derval Tubridy in Chapter 25) little was to change in the world of Irish publishing during the 1950s—a period of very heavy emigration—until late in that decade when new economic policies were introduced.
  The book notes on page 591:
  Though initially it seemed like a hazardous venture, the range of publications and the quality of the editions marked the Dolmen Press out as an extraordinary publishing house which rejuvenated Irish literature and criticism, and further advanced the tradition of illustration begun with the illuminated manuscripts of early Christian times. The man behind this achievement has been described as 'a new kind of impresario and a reinventor of prevailing tradition.' Typographer, artist, architect, set-designer, Yeats scholar, and philatelist, Liam Miller played a vital role in the development of a new generation of poets and writers of the 1950s and 1960s in Ireland, making possible, as one writer notes, 'a normal career, one volume evolving from another.' With his tremendous eye for design Miller brought the art back into publishing, encouraging collaboration between artists and writers, sourcing the very best in materials and ensuring that Dolmen Press books were of the highest standard. For Louis le Brocquy, Miller 'was an artist enraptured by a vision of perfection for its own sake, by an overriding concern for the thing itself.'
  The book notes on pages 633–634:
  The Dolmen Press ceased business following the death of Liam Miller in 1987 and the firm's archive is now in the Z Smyth Reynolds Library in Wake Forest University in North Carolina.
  The book notes on pages 1–2:
  A few salient details may be drawn from the example of Heaney's publishing history. Heaney is one amoung a number of major twentieth century Irish writers to establish a literary career in London, and then desire publication in Ireland. At the very beginning of his career, in 1964, he sent a collection of poems to the leading Irish cultural publisher of this era, the Dolmen Press in Dublin, which was run by Liam Miller (1924–87), a distinguished book designer with great enthusiasm for fine literature and printing.
  The book notes on page 110:
  In addition to these major players there existed a plethora of smaller firms, many of which were miniscule in size, short-livved in their duration, and frankly non-commercial in their activities (being little more than hobbies for their owners). A small number of these private presses, most notably the Cuala Press from 1908 to 1946, and later the Dolmen Press from 1951 to 1988, were dedicated to the publication of imaginative literature in beautiful hand printed form, and, in particular, to the promotion of the work of new writers.
2. Redshaw, Thomas Dillon (May 2012). "'The Dolmen Poets': Liam Miller and Poetry Publishing in Ireland, 1951–1961". Irish University Review. 42 (1). Edinburgh University Press: 141–154. doi:10.3366/iur.2012.0013.
  The abstract notes:
  With the publication of The Dolmen Miscellany (1962) and the inception of Poetry Ireland the same year, Liam Miller's Dolmen Press came to represent artistically and commercially Irish poets and their works within the Republic of Ireland and abroad. In Miller's publishing practice, the liberal notion of ‘Poetry Ireland’ had come to supplant a narrower one: the idea of the ‘Dolmen Poets.’ As the nineteen fifties drew to a close, the Dolmen Poets were Padraic Colum and Austin Clarke (but not Patrick Kavanagh), Richard Murphy, John Montague, and especially Thomas Kinsella. In Dolmen's earliest years, however, the notion of the ‘Dolmen Poets’ had entailed other figures – David Marcus, Donald Davie, Valentin Iremonger – as well as a “group” editorial method and small, economical print format suited to Dolmen's elementary technical facilities. When, in the ‘Dolmen Poets” format Miller printed the programme for the famous, three-way reading by Murphy, Montague, and Kinsella at the Royal Hibernian Hotel on 3 February 1961, both the occasion and the souvenir programme signalled Miller's embracing of the concept of ‘Poetry Ireland’.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dolmen Press to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ The material above is excellent evidence of notability . I wish we had as much good sourcing for other notable publishers. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Cunard, you've convinced me. Thanks for your great work. Would you be able to add some of that to the article? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 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 delete. Nakon 02:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChipVault[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable web project. I only found one mention of it (apart from Wikipedia itself and the repo at SourceForge). The original contributor has a single purpose account (contribs) and appears to have a close connection with the topic. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dead beta sourceforge-project with no reviews. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, entirely lacking coverage in reliable sources. A search turned up no significant independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:02, 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. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Lee[edit]

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

Contested PROD about a businesswomen who lacks any real n notability. No significant award or achievements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough references to establish notability. Though no awards or achievements have been described her activities and opinions seemed to have attracted non-primary source attention. Bfpage |leave a message 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic Comment The nominator has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. He does little else other than reverting and nominating my edits for deletion. For a recent example see my comments in a previous nomination “discussion". I have been complaining about this behavior for months, but it seems that on Wikipedia the victim is automatically at fault. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you strike that comment. Not only are you off-topic, you are casting aspersions on another editor, and have done this multiple times. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning to delete at the moment, but this is a very borderline case, hence the appropriateness of bringing this to AfD.

Of the 7 references currently in the article, [1] is written by the subject herself, [2] is more a less a summary of the article by the subject, [3] is clearly press release based, about another person and company, and mentions the subject only in passing, [4] is a profile from a site with user-generated content, [5] is a brief "interview" with the subject about her view of another company, [6] and [7] are from TechCrunch (as are [1] and [3]) and are connected with publicizing the launch of her new company. Incidentally, TechCrunch is owned by AOL, which had a heavy investment by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, for whom the subject still works. Note also that "founding CEO" of RMG Networks means she was the first CEO but not necessarily the founder of the company, and she had left RMG four years before it became a publicly traded company.

I have found nothing which covers the subject herself in any kind of depth. Thus she arguably does not pass WP:GNG, and she clearly does not pass the alternative criteria at WP:ANYBIO. One of the major problems with assessing articles about businesses and business people is that they are all seasoned users of the public relations industry who can generate coverage, out of all proportion to the importance or long-lasting significance of the subject, especially in the case of start-ups and venture capital. I suggest reading "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR" from the Columbia Journalism Review for caveats that all editors of business-related articles should be aware of. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: It's possible she's notable for reasons the article doesn't make clear. The WSJ apparently finds female VCs interesting enough to write about. How rare are they? How rare are female VCs who start their own firms? If she's breaking new ground, the article should say so up front. Right now the article suggests she's just another respected businessperson who occasionally gets mentioned briefly in articles along with a bunch of other people. --Rosekelleher (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question. According to Reuters [19], 6% of all partners in all VC firms globally are women—a small percentage, but not a small number, given the number of VC firms. As an example, Lee was previously a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which alone has about 10 women partners (junior and senior). See also this list of 105 women venture capitalists, although largely confined to the US. There are already several VC firms started by women which are dedicated solely to funding start-ups by women entrepreneurs. As far`as I can see, Lee's new firm, Cowboy Ventures, is not one of those. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 30 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. She is undeniably successful as an individual, but notability is another thing, and she is not that. I tried to find an article she could be merged to, but none seem apropos. As an editor above enumerated, the citations in the article are all borderline and weak except for the TechCrunch one. This passage made me think that it is too soon for her to have her own page, if ever:

It’s generally too early to tell how those bets will ultimately play out, although a few of those companies have already moved on to successfully raise Series A rounds. Lee declined to comment for this story, but after two-and-a-half years, she and Lichtenstein are apparently now ready to raise a new fund. While the SEC filing shows they are seeking slightly more capital to work with for Cowboy Ventures Fund II, at $55 million, the amount is consistent with the same type of early-stage investments.

$55million isn't that much money in the venture capital world (I don't think?), and the company's impact remains unproven.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Tech Crunch articles ([20][21]) suggest that the subject meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She also seems to be mentioned regularly in major press outlets, even outside of the many mentions she gets in articles about Ellen Pao. Last week Lee's firm was one of the subjects of a New York Times DealBook article where she was quoted. A week before that, her unicorn club article was mentioned in both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:04, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InstaForex[edit]

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

No evidence of notability NE Ent 09:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, no evidence of anything really since there are no reliable sources. There are 2 reference to the financial regulatory authorities of Belize - which is not known for its financial markets. The first one says they are regulated, the second says that the license has been withdrawn (and is now a deadlink). There is no way we'd even be able to tell if it is still in business. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, clearly created to promote the company. Furthermore we need to nuke these obviously commercial pages even when they do include include sources trying to claim marginal Notability. Alsee (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 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 redirect to Greenford. Closing early as most primary schools now get redirected if no notability can be found. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenor Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school; PROD removed —teb728 t c 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:13, 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 delete. Nakon 02:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadclose House[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: Jbhunley, Necrothesp. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I deprodded because this house is Grade II-listed and I think it needs further discussion. Grade II listing is not usually seen as a definite keep, but it is at least an indication of some notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found nothing on a cursory search. When the article was created it looked like it was to support an estate agent's listing. There was a web link to the listing in this version of the article with more information. Jbh (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I can find on this building supports its notability per WP:GEOFEAT. No coverage in RS to verify or sustain an article per WP:NRV. Jbh (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with previous statements.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:12, 3 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 delete. A7, no reasonable claim of importance DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranuka Hewage[edit]

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

Fails WP:SCHOLAR. —teb728 t c 08:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Way WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A7 --Karlhard (talk) 14:21, 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) 08:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatable[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PROD removed. —teb728 t c 08:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per above --Karlhard (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsourced in addition to remarks above. Dolescum (talk) 03:14, 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 procedural close; incorrect forum for a redirect page. The page has been renominated at RfD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 30. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People's republic of poland[edit]

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

WP:MOS, bad English Poeticbent talk 05:26, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete REDUNDANT Wikipedia already has that page which redirects to this page. Psychotic Spartan 123 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep/Wrong place Nominated was never an article and hence not for AfD. Plus it is a valid redirect, as an alternate capitalization of an alternate title of Polish People's Republic. If you still want to pursue deletion, please check Redirects for discussion for that. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sensible redirect. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry for the confusion. Wrong placement resulted from following active link in the pop-up template which does not include proper link to Redirects for Discussion. Renominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 30. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 13:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. I've marked it as ((R from alternative capitalization)) and ((R from alternative punctuation)), without the punctuation. The correct forum is WP:RfD, where it is mentioned, and I have said I have done so there, without prejudice to that discussion. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 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) 08:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Young (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who no longer meets the WP:RLN guidelines. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear notable and the references are all dead links. Mattlore (talk) 19:49, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 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, czar ⨹ 05:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems I missed this discussion while on holidays. The result is, of course, appropriate: Co-operative Championships players should not be guaranteed notability. The guideline change necessarily results in this article being deleted as no case can be made that he passes the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:22, 6 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) Esquivalience ^t 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y. S. Sharmila[edit]

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

During my second look at this article it appears there is nothing to be salvaged. Recommending deletion as subject does not meet any relevant guideline for notability, and is lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important leader of the YSR Congress. Her "yatra"s (tours) have got significant coverage from the South Indian press [22]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:02, 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, Nakon 00:18, 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, czar ⨹ 05:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article looks as if written like an advertisement. Should be written by any independent editor again. I am against the current content Dormantos (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redtigerxyz. A notable leader of YSR Congress and there has been lot of coverage of her this this,this this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Sources include: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] (short article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 6 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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asharfi Lal Mishra[edit]

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

Per wp:Notability. Non-notable person, only sources, which editor is now edit warring over, are WP pages, WP:Commons pages, Twitter and Facebook. Likely autobiography. 220 of ^Borg 05:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 No assertion of importance in the article. Unremarkable maths teacher. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is document not reliable source?(Teacher1943)

I have found sources from Facbook,twitter & website and also met to Asharfi Lal Mishra in a annual function at Galuwapur Inter College.He is eminent educationists of State Uttar Pradesh,India.If administration is not satisfied please delete it shortly.Thanks.(Teacher1943) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

teacher43 I have told you, more than once, that "Facbook,twitter & website" (personal website that is) are self-published and therefore not reliable sources and so cannot be used on WP as references. 220 of ^Borg 10:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a worthy gentleman who has provided long and dedicated service to the community, but doesn't meet the standards expected for Wikipedia biographees. Le petit fromage (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per A7. No indication of notability or importance. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear gentlemen! I have linked documentary proof ie. A certificate given by state government of Uttar Pradesh,India for "Teacher Award 1998" but not accepted Please tell me option for it. I have linked other many photo groups & certificate but not accepted please tell me suitable & reliable option source. Teachers/educationists are not willing go to media for publicity in India. Educationists are not businessmen.Print media is also under pocket. Please tell me a certificate is reliable or a news paper,photo group is reliable or news paper. According to WP news paper is reliable.It means any degree or any award or any prize has no meaning without approval of print media. and print media is not so fair and its work.At last I have found that according to WP any achievement has no meaning. Dear sir achievements are ornaments of print media.(Teacher 1943) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Please first of all you provide me reliable list of news agency,news papers ,reliable books,reliable scholars.(Teacher1943} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how to find out if a source is reliable or not.--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the question as to whether the award confers enough notability to push its recipient over the notability bar. Le petit fromage (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not A7, because it does assert significance. But what';s here is not enough to make him notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The Article is simply a non-sense and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 12:22, 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) 15:45, 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. 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 delete. Nakon 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patta Patta Singhan Da Vairi[edit]

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

Film that sounds more like a promo page based off of this article Wgolf (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per simply being TOO SOON. I gave the article a face-lift per MOS:FILM and it appears to be completed and set for an April 2015 release... but it lacks coverage enough to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). We can allow it back once notability can be established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per simply being TOO SOON. Agree with Schmidt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 March 2015‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by MusikAnimal as WP:G7, One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Archive[edit]

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

The topic does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia standards (see WP:N and WP:CORP). I can find no coverage of it in any secondary source at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Furthermore, the user who created the page has not edited any other pages, suggesting a strong personal involvement with the topic and a resulting conflict of interest. Lemuellio (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would think that 20th Century Fox would be interested in a site trading on their trademark in a confusing way, unlike the legit Warner Archive Collection. As it is though, this is pretty much an archive.org scraper looking for pageclicks and wrapping ads around them. User has also added links to several articles to film links on their site, undercutting the free archive.org links, which I have removed. Nate • (chatter) 07:53, 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 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight For Bala (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Mentions are passing in nature, very little about the movie. reddogsix (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete To the contrary of the nominator's statement, the article DOES include some rather substantial coverage.[29] and more is available. BUT as we have no confirmation of it completing WP:NFF is failed. Allow back when notability is more strongly established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice on WP:TOOSOON grounds. It'll be notable at some point in the future, but not now. Not now. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Since it will be notable at some point of time. SD0001 (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 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.