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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities at University of Dhaka[edit]

Facilities at University of Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

as per WP:GNG and WP:NOTGUIDE. this article has no encyclopaedic value, it is purely a guide for students. I oppose redirect and merge as any pertinent info is in the main University of Dhaka already. Also it's an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - IMHO the nom's spot on - If you're a student here - This comes in handy, If on the other hand you live anywhere but Dhaka then chances are this article is going to be absolutely useless to you but meh that's my take on it, Anyway imho not seeing any encyclopedic content here so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 04:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepComment Poorly written and needs a lot of ref-impore BUT valid spin-off. – nafSadh did say 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are twenty or so ((University of Dhaka)) related articles which I've recently been tidying a little, prompted by User:LibStar proding a couple of them. The prods are easily salvageable but on this one I agree; little of the content is appropriate to Wikipedia and most of what is can already be found in one or another of the twenty.

@Nafsadh: suggest that over the next couple of days you merge into the other articles any content that you consider particularly valuable; it really isn't encyclopaedic for the most part. -Arb. (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Univ of Dhaka is really not in my priority list and every article related to it is absolute mess. I wish there was someone was interested and active on Wikipedia from the university and would improve that. I concur that this spinoff is not encyclopedic on its own merit. Sadly the parent article is neither. – nafSadh did say 15:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why does there have to be more than one Dhaka University article? One page is enough to cover these topics, in fact the DU page already has a list of faculties. The main university article needs work. I don't see other major Asian universities with so many subpages.--203.112.78.254 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The key points could be adequately covered in the main article on the University of Dhaka. Detailed lists of buildings and their capacities for a single university isn't encyclopaedic content --  Helenabella (Talk)  07:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and fails WP:GNG.It is covered in the University of Dhaka.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Programming[edit]

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

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

Sorry if I'm not wording things well, I don't contribute to wikipedia much aside from occasional spelling and grammar improvements. I guess I'm trying to say (as a software developer) that I don't think this is notable. This article seems to exist only to hype a company with a poorly defined paradigm. I was sent a generic recruitment email from Intentional Software that mostly linked to this page, which seems constructed to make that company sound like it's doing more than it is. I'm not convinced that this is an actual separate paradigm, it talks a lot about what it could do in very abstract terms, but does not go into much depth on problems being approached differently. Darklink259 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see what you mean, about both the article and the idea, and it suggests potential WP:COI issues if the company is actively using this article in their recruitment materials. But I think this is notable in the Wikipedia sense - coverage in multiple reliable sources - even though it hasn't really taken off as a concept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would argue that this is only a concept of a concept, that the so-called paradigm, since it doesn't seem to be described in any detail, doesn't actually exist. I guess this could be a "programming concept", or something like that, but I don't think it's correct for it to be called a "paradigm". Darklink259 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established by included refs and external links. ~KvnG 00:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never Back Loosers Cricket Team[edit]

Never Back Loosers Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable cricket club. No coverage in reliable sources to show notability, so fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete fails WP:CRIN. but with a name like that, how can this be a serious cricket team? LibStar (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. I edited the page when I stumbled across it and discovered that the original author had used the Chennai Super Kings article as a template, leaving some of the references in place. This gave the appearance of the team having notable references on websites such as ESPN. I am not accusing the author of doing it intentionally to mislead of course, because it is the only article he has ever created. I also note that he is listed in the team's squad. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N and WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable team with mis-spelt name ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a Facebook page and a couple of YouTube videos do not equal notability.  Helenabella (Talk)  07:25, 11 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. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FITGIRLCODE[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It appears to be about a blog, though the article is too vaguely written to make this clear. The only English-language reference does not mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are lots of non-English hits on a Google News search. Can't tell if they're relevant, though. This article seems to be from the Dutch-language version of Glamour, but the Google Translate version seems to be more of a sponsored challenge for readers than a description of the blog. I gave up after going a few pages deeper and not seeing anything really exciting. Maybe someone should go pester a Dutch editor? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems most likely that this site is not yet notable, but the creator of the page is attempting to gain publicity for it in order to make it so. However, that is not what Wikipedia is for. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable blog that fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It also seems (though I am not sure) that the site's founder, Aranka van der Voorden, would more likely pass the notability test, and an article on the person would be a logical place to mention the site she has founded (possibly the target of a redirect from this term). Dwpaul ^Talk 23:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The non-English sources do not appear to be address the subject in detail (based on an admittedly difficult use of Google translate) and therefore the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Deli nk (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in the current references. While I did not look for additional sources, I did check

Alexa. This website ranks #278,190 in the world, 13,738 in the Netherlands, and 168,861 in the United States. Visitors are 46% from the Netherlands, 42% from the US, and 12% from other countries. If better (!) references are added to the article, I will be happy to review my position. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything better than trivial mentions, so I guess I'll join the pile-on. There are many hits at Glamour.nl, but, as far as I can tell, they are all sponsored content, articles written by the founders of fitgirlcode, or trivial mentions. Maybe a Dutch-speaking editor could do a better job, and if they can find third-party reliable sources, then the the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Blog is non-notable and overt promo as is. Jppcap (talk) 13:48, 10 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. Artcle's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aubry roach[edit]

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

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I sense that he is "emerging". When he has demonstrably emerged, and has some books, exhibitions and so on to his name, he may qualify for an article. Till then, alas no. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 5 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of rich Internet application formats[edit]

List of rich Internet application formats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is in fact a Chimera article: While it is called "List of rich Internet application formats", it is a slapdash list consisting of runtime environments and programming languages. A very hilarious feature of this article is adding "operating system" columns for formats!

Another article called List of rich Internet application frameworks does a much better job, making any prospect of improvements absurd. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not a great article and it could certainly be improved, but I don't see why it should be deleted. The reasons provided are mostly personal opinions as, for instance, I don't think it's weird to list the OSes that support the formats, but even if it was it's not a reason for deletion. Laurent (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, tiny, abandoned and redundant. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It isn't at all clear what this article is supposed to be about. It seems like a fairly random collection of Internet tools. The title says "Internet Application Formats" which sounds like it is referring to open standards like Javascript. But then it includes specific development environments which are quite different than a "format". The list is a complete hodge podge of programming tools for the Internet with very little in common. Also, no references at all. I don't see how it could be improved because there is no clear idea what it is supposed to be about. Strong delete. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find much in the way of reliable sources for "rich Internet application format"; I don't think it is a notable concept." Rich Internet application framework" is a notable concept and discussed in many sources, some of which are reliable. List of rich Internet application frameworks could use some cleanup itself, but it is a solid list-class article with a notable topic backing it. I disagree with the nom about OS columns. Any RIA framework, even if it is purely browser based, is going to have browser requirements (do any of these frameworks run on, e.g., NCSA Mosaic?) and thus have underlying OS dependencies. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 10 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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drumkit from Hell[edit]

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

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

I couldn't establish that this product meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 5 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saundra Williams[edit]

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

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

I declined SNUGGUMS' PROD on the basis that the subject meets WP:BAND criterion 2, and I still believe that because Williams meets this, her article shouldn't be subject to an under-the-rug PROD that would easily expire due to low article traffic.

Nevertheless, charting two songs on a relatively obscure component chart shouldn't be an automatic exemption from failing broader notability standards, and there isn't too terribly much coverage of Williams. Beyond passing mentions and a brief AllMusic review of one of her singles, I could not find any significant secondary coverage. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per insufficient coverage. I personally don't see the problem with PRODing, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't see enough coverage to warrant an article either, despite the two 'hits'. — sparklism ^hey! 09:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Double Dhamaal#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalebi Bai[edit]

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

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

Contested prod-a unotable song that could be redirected to a film (there is no speedy for songs hence why I'm doing this) Wgolf (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find enough info to justify a separate article for this song. If anyone else can then that is great. The only other option would be to Redirect to Double Dhamaal#Soundtrack. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Wgolf: there is a speedy for songs but does not applied in this case. See WP:A9, it applies to article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: to Double Dhamaal. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Double Dhamaal#Soundtrack, it was quite famous when it came out.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 15:34, 7 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 procedural close. Article was deleted by creator's request and re-made as a redirect. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bellator 137[edit]

Bellator 137 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We've been through this process and it was ultimately decided Bellator MMA pages would be done by season/year. No need for this to have its own stand alone entry. Udar55 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - No, it was decided that Bellator season events would not have their own articles. For the first time, Bellator is not going off a season basis. This is even mentioned on the Bellator MMA in 2015 page. It's still early in the year and I can create pages for the other 2015 events as well. It's not a matter of notability as Bellator is factually the second biggest MMA promotion in the world. If WSOF can have its own articles, why can't Bellator? I understand why it was decided that Bellator season events stay on one page. But as of 2015, Bellator has turned over a new leaf as to how they classify their events. Not as a season but in a way similar to UFC. If Bellator has made that change, why can't we? This is not a long-term project, it is very doable. And I can do the work if everyone else doesn't want to. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If Bellator has made that change, why can't we?" Because it has already been decided that Bellator doesn't need stand alone pages. I've been handling the Bellator pages since day one and fought against the change to one page/seasons, but Wikipedia ruled against it. So I'm going by the rules they set. It appears you weren't even here then, so perhaps you should read this before insisting on changes on your own accord. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7#Bellator Udar55 (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting from the peanut gallery Wikipedia if it does rule it is by consensus. The discussion Udar55 pointed out was done in 2011 and circumstances can and do change. I think it might be worth a revisit considering the changes in Bellator format. I have no opinion which direction it should go.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to save WWE Batman131 (and the MMA Wiki project) some time as individual Bellator pages will eventually get deleted. And a show headlined by Kendall Grove isn't particularly notable in the first place. Udar55 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got that. I agree that the consensus right now is no individual pages.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from Udar. I don't want to change the past. I only want to create lone articles for Bellator events post-season 11 as Bellator is no longer being done in seasons. I don't mind creating pages for the other 6 events. It should only take a couple of days. But I don't want to stir up trouble. If you guys are worried or concerned still, I'll rest my case. Oh and lol, yes I know an event headlined by Kendall Grove doesn't seem that notable, but neither does one headlined by David Branch and Ronny Markes, right? WWE Batman131 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An MMA event scheduled for May that appears to have 1 announced fight. I see nothing that shows this fight card meets WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a reason for deletion but if you want I can leave it as a redirect as more fights will be announced over the next few weeks. This is what's almost always done with UFC events. WWE Batman131 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is not meeting WP:EVENT not a reason for deletion? Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because most UFC fight cards have one fight announced at first and they still have articles. We leave redirects for those pages until more fights are announced. Based on what you're saying, 95% of UFC event articles would be deleted upon creation. I know this because I have experience editing articles as such. Your username does not seem very familiar when it comes to MMA articles, so how could you know how things have been done. I've already done the same with the Bellator 137 article. If you'd like, I can request opinions from experienced MMA article editors just like Udar. WWE Batman131 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that Papaursa goes much further back with MMA articles than you do - that only reflects your recent activity not his. Neither matters.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean any disrespect. What I'm saying is that I can ask for opinions from other experienced MMA event article editors, if you'd like. WWE Batman131 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the editors I'm speaking of: Gsfelipe94, Ppt1973, Imhungry4444, Psycho-Krillin, and SQGibbon. WWE Batman131 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing that shows this fight card will be historically significant or produce anything other that routines sports reporting, so it fails both GNG and EVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 19:05, 10 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. Article is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hofstra quidditch[edit]

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

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

The article is an orphaned stub, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I conducted the requisite searches, and there is no significant outside coverage of the subject. The article cites no sources unrelated to the subject. The subject is a team playing a sport that is becoming gradually more notable, and plays for a university which is notable, but per WP:INHERITORG, this does not establish sufficient notability. Since the articles creation over a year ago, it has not expanded from the initial stub, and given the lack of sources, it is unlikely to expand anytime in the foreseeable future. WantaghNY (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing GNG or possibly redirect to US Quidditch#Teams in the US. When they make the sports pages of a newspaper, then we can talk. Until then, we'll just have to muggle through without it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing rocket[edit]

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

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

This seems to have been created back in 2006 starting with a mechanical translation of a German Wikipedia article on a specific rocket and has seen some minimal updating over the years to pull in possibly related notions. From what I can see the whole thing is a synthesis, and there is no such term or concept. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence that such a thing exists, no WP:RS. -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- it looks rather as if a newspaper story on this German rocket invented a headline "Disappearing rocket". Unless there is clear corroboration, this does not merit an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:25, 5 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. Article's subject is found to be promotional and to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madinah Institute for Leadership and Entrepreneurship (MILE)[edit]

Madinah Institute for Leadership and Entrepreneurship (MILE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advert. Whole article reads like a prospectus with peacock terms and marketing language everywhere. Dolescum (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be advertising for a non-notable business.  Helenabella (Talk)  07:30, 11 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. Artcle's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Havelock[edit]

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

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

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

Article for fictional character, consists almost entirely of plot summary from one film, with very little real-world significance. Fru1tbat (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteBasically this is fancruft. Non-notable character.TheLongTone (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmarTours[edit]

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

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

In spite of the apparent large number of references, does not meet WP:GNG. The references are all either press releases, promotional placements, advertisements, articles containing a quote from the CEO but not saying anything about smartours, or the company homepage itself. Also violates WP:COI, as the article creator is an officer of the company. ubiquity (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is my analysis of the 17 references.

1. press release
2. directory listing
3. directory listing
4. contains a quote from CEO, but does not say anything about the company
5. bad link? i saw no text beyond the title, maybe there's some sort of paywall?
6. company homepage
7. promotional
8. advertisement
9. advertisement
10. promotional
11. press release
12. contains a quote from CEO, but does not say anything about the company
13. promotional
14. contains a quote from CEO, but does not say anything about the company
15. promotional
16. promotional
17. home page

I don't see any evidence of notability here. ubiquity (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Removing the speedy tag from this article was a poor call: the assertion of notability is slimmer than a slim thing and as noted the "references" are virtually all bordering on spamlinks. Promotional article about dull travel agency.TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Ubiquity on the source analysis. It seems pretty much the entire volume of material about this company available on the internet is in the article, and none of it is sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – article has a history of creation/deletion, remains promotional with this version--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:A7. Just Chilling (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan jyoti Das.[edit]

Tapan jyoti Das. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, un-sourced. BollyJeff | talk 14:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Meets A7, no indication of importance or significance in the article Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:40, 4 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.

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Jimmerson[edit]

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

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

Non notable fighter fails notability CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:01, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a stellar record but does meet WP:NBOX through is NABF title fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Losing a series of NABF fights seems an unlikely way to be notable and I think is another indication that WP:NBOX is too generous. However, consensus prevails and he does appear to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am by no means an MMA/UFC historian, but I have read a lot about Jimmerson with regard to UFC 1. To my understanding, the original point to UFC was more of 'who is the best fighter with the best style' as opposed the the hybrid fight style of today. Jimmerson was the boxer representative and boxing was then and still is a major fighting style (e.g., commercially, fan support, etc.). I think a lot has been written about this fact and in general about UFC 1 (for example see [1], [2], and [3]). I know this does not meet WP:NMMA, but think it supports GNG being met. RonSigPi (talk) 23:09, 9 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. Article's subject is found to not be verifiable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Dynasty Of World[edit]

Oldest Dynasty Of World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Title is confusing and does not match with the content! , claim of being oldest is also propostures! Shrikanthv (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, but if kept rename 'Katoch dynasty'. The article has huge issues: English is terrible, the title is somewhat POV, listing all members of that dynasty may be inappropriate, "now present 488th ruler of Kangra" is more than dubious (I thought Indian governments were elected?). When all is said and done, it might still be notable enough to warrant an article (though not that article). Tigraan (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Uses unreliable sources for the claim, making the topic unverifiable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:57, 7 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Up Roses: Sacramento Remembers Elliott Smith[edit]

Coming Up Roses: Sacramento Remembers Elliott Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Further, none of the artists appear notable. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Memory: A Tribute to Elliott Smith[edit]

Remote Memory: A Tribute to Elliott Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to satisfy criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elliot Smith. I added a brief statement about the album at the Elliot Smith page. JodyB _talk 12:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribute to Elliott Smith[edit]

A Tribute to Elliott Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to satisfy criteria. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge with Elliot Smith. An AllMusic source confirms the album's release and a track listing, but I can't find anything in Rolling Stone specifically about the album, or via a news search. I'm surprised, I thought something like this would have a number of reviews, but it seems not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 7 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glory 21: San Diego[edit]

Glory 21: San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY yet; perhaps WP:TOOSOON, perhaps will never happen. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Upcoming kickboxing event scheduled for May. The only coverage is routine sports reporting consisting of fight announcements. There's nothing to show the fights or event constitute anything that would meet WP:EVENT. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not all fight cards are notable (most aren't). Nothing to show historical significance or anything but routine sports coverage. Fails GNG and EVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inert gas asphyxiation[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. Article fails WP:GNG. There isn't even a reference that this term is actually used by anybody but the creator of this article. The whole article has been constructed by OR, patching together material on an range of different material. there's no evidence provided that this subject is more notable than "clothing asphyxiation" or "smoke asphyxiation" or a dozen other kinds of asphyxiation. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The title and scope of the article both seem to be a reasonable and there's plenty of coverage out there such as this. The only issue I see is that there's no mention of the hazard of asphyxiation by halon fire suppression systems. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Asphyxia - I do not agree with the accusation that the whole article is original research, but a merge seems in order. If notability is met for a standalone article, maybe rename, but do not delete. Tigraan (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not OR in the least. Thousands of Google hits on the term apart from Wikipedia quotes, several Google Scholar uses, and currently in US national news. Dozens of pertinent sources, all very much on-topic. EllenCT (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an important class of asphyxia, with massive literature available. I second the need to refer to the hazard of asphyxiation by halon fire suppression systems. Inert gases like helium and nitrogen are grouped together (logically and in the literature) since their mechanism of action is the same (in contrast to say, carbon monoxide). -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The citations there now aren't remotely similar to OR. I'd also keep it as a standalone article due to the crucial differences between it & 'regular' asphyxia, its (related) routine use in 'humane' animal slaughter, assisted suicide, and the growing push to use it for executing people in the USA. —xyzzy 13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see those "crucial differences", hence my 'merge' !vote. All in all, it's still oxygen lacking to the lungs. Am I missing something? Tigraan (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The differences are that the lungs are working properly (unlike compressive asphyxia), and the oxygen transport in the blood is working normally (unlike carbon monoxide poisoning), but there is no oxygen in the gas being breathed. The article doesn't fully explain it, but in inert gas asphyxiation (unlike many other forms), the victim is often completely unaware that there is a problem. -- 120.17.74.76 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The literal term need not have any currency - the term defines itself and as such, represents a free-standing subject of interest. I accessed it on a "keywords" basis, and it turned out to be quite what I was looking for. The gains from merging can be captured through cross-references. 184.33.61.97 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not sure why this was never closed much much sooner but there we go, As per schools are kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Christian School[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable and unreferenced for 5 years. Article sites only the school's own webpage and some newspaper article noting that studenst at the shcool played a game. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article reads like it has been written by an officer of the school to advertise its services. Syek88 (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A bona fide high school with plenty of news coverage easily found by a basic Google News search, this is clearly notable according to the notability standards applied to high schools. The multiple state championships won by this school attest to its status. Like many school articles, this article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - perfectly legitimate article per longstanding consensus and precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Schooloutcomes and there are many reliable references about this school. Delibzr (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Outcomes, NSCHOOL. Jacona (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JodyB _talk 13:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Jones[edit]

James F. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Speedy-delete-tagged as attack page, but see Talk:James F. Jones. Should the article be reverted to as at 20:26, 11 January 2015? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Remove slander, add in-line referenced info about an accomplished scholar and academic administrator.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP Subject is regularly in the news. Any items which are not properly referenced can be removed. User:roberto incognito — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment recent removal of OR and potentially libelous content have resolved issues with content in the article, however an admin should clean out history prior to this edit. RadioFan (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP Subject is currently in the news, and the criticisms are well referenced. Any future items which are not properly referenced should be removed. Doug (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP but revise. News coverage of him presiding over the suicide of a 114 year old college argues for notability. But revision needed for chronological order, and for selection of what is encyclopedia-worthy and what is not.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with changes and Semi-Protect The subject is clearly very notable, but the extent of the BLP violations that are being introduced by vandals is not acceptable. I have made attempts to clean up this article in the past, but it a number of ip editors with grudges against this person (this is a given considering his controversial status) have reintroduced it. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dinesh Subasinghe. JodyB _talk 13:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Nadee[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:NALBUMS in that it hasn't charted, won any major awards, received significant airplay or being part of a notable media performance. All the Sri Lankan newspaper articles on Karuna Nadee seem to be based on press releases and/or interviews with its composer and only prove that the album existed not its significance. It should be noted that on the article's talk page the claim that the album was "the first Buddhist oratorio" has been conclusively disproven. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Karuna Nadee deletion is an unfair Decision. Last month Dan arndt deleted Rawan Nada Article of mine ,he mentioned that it has no recognition and importance,then i gave many web links about it,and he mentioned it all about Dinesh Subasinghe and his album Karuna Nadee, now i will present this link about its record,its was the most sold instrumental album in sri lanka,sri lanka is a country with a small population 20 million,so it wont be like a hollywood production,i try my best to bring out the data of local artists to the world,valuable things are happening here,so why cant wikipedia support us to bring our data to the world,we have a historical heritage for 2500 years and still some important art work are happening,event after 30- years war
  • Rawan nada most soled Instrumental Album Reference
  • http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150308/magazine/dinesh-records-highest-sale-for-an-instrumental-139029.html
  • http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150308/magazine/tv-times/
  • Rawan nada has been deleted ,but it was the first ever music album by the historical instrument known as Ravanahatha
  • Dan arndt saying it dosen't have any recognition or importance
  • Karuna Nadee is an album after decades based on an Oratorio.its very rare to find Album based an oratorio. please do some fair response for my articles Rawan Nada and Karuna Nadee.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB _talk 13:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noita[edit]

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

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

It's a definition, more appropriate to Wikitionary, should be transfered or merged with Finnish Shamanism Jerodlycett (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The word doesn't have any different meaning in Finnish than witch. The article Tietäjä (wise man/seer) by the same user is very similar and should also be only in Wiktionary. --Pudeo' 03:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pudeo is right. It's a dictionary entry. bbx (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Grossman[edit]

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

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

No significant or independent coverage. Google results show social media and short pages intended to promote him as a doctor. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Not even the external links give real info about him! --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got two different Peter Grossmans. The doctor is an LA plastic surgeon; the professor is at Butler University in Indianapolis. The Butler page seems to be down, but here's another one by the university. There's also an Amazon page and a well-trafficked blog that called Grossman's book the "Energy book of the year" in 2013. --76.105.88.229 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Assuming the article is intended to be about economics Professor Peter Z. Grossman, he is quiet obviously a notable author. He is described in one review as "the preeminent historian of American energy policy."[4] The initializer (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C5. It's clear the nominator intended this particular Grossman (who is an academic, not a physician), because he listed the AfD in the correct deletion sorting categories. But he doesn't seem to have familiarized himself with Wikipedia academic notability standards before making this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep deletion was simple case of mistaken identity. Article itself is now clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that fun stuff. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rianna Loving[edit]

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

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

Withdrawn by nominator after additional sources added. Though one source is a apsssing mention, I believe it meets requirements to survive as a stub.Flat Out let's discuss it 03:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPNOTE. Apart from one source to confirm the subject has a company and a few like this that indicate she had a minor acting career, there is nothing to support the notability of the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should be noted that before nominating this for deletion, the nominator basically blanked the article. If anyone wants to evaluate the article as it was actually written, it is here: [5]. Full disclosure: I was the person who removed Flat Out's the original speedy tag, saying I didn't think the article qualified for A7 or G11. I have no opinion about this AfD, but it does bother me to see someone gut an article and then nominate for deletion the empty shell that remains. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction MelanieN you removed another editor's speedy tag (User:Trivialist) - here and noted that "deleting speedy tags: there are credible claims of significance, and promotion can be handled by editing. Other avenues of deletion remain available." I also nominated it for speedy deletion because it appeared blatantly promotional but noticed it had previously been nominated for speedy deletion and removed that tag. I then reviewed the article line by line and found it was full of unspported claims about the subject, and contained many inline urls to external company websites associated with the subject. I also removed two tables, one being an unsourced list of acting roles, and one being a list of links to product advertising. I agree with User:Trivialist that it warranted speedy deletion. Feel free to review any of my edits and I will happily debate them. I also corrected my edit summary that imdb profile appeared fake. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the error. I misread the history. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN would you be kind enough to do an early close? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78)[edit]

Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no sources that state there was a continuous 20 year war between the Mughals and Rajputs. Kansas Bear (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as nom. This article has been recreated to push a POV which is not supported by historical fact. The Akbar the Great article clearly shows his campaigns against numerous groups and is heavily referenced. Someone has tried to take those campaigns and re-write history to suit their own personal POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:24, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Duplicate !vote above from nominator has been struck. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only source (on archive.org) is a book published in 1931, and reading the preface casts doubts about reliablity. If someone can come up with a reliable source, I will change my !vote (even if the article would need serious cleanup). Tigraan (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while there is some passing mention of this conflict in reliable sources, none appear to give the subject significant coverage. Of course there maybe non-online sources available, but based on what can be found online, I cannot see this event being notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swings (rapper)[edit]

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

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

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Galvan (rapper) and Swings (rapper) as delete but significant procedural errors have been brought to my attention that merit the articles being undeleted and relisted. I do not have a particular opinion on the merits of the article. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. At least one non-trivial RS: [6]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Independent sourcing and multiple chart-rankings should be a clear indication of his notability Asdklf; (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He's notable. Putting "스윙스" into Naver yields lots and lots and lots of results about him. The Wikipedia article is sourced from mostly non-RS, but nearly all kpop articles are. There is plenty of information on this guy out there in RS, but most of it's probably in Korean. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinyang-i - Keep !voters need to provide sources .... So list 10 & I'll close this. –Davey2010^Talk 04:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought someone would just go do what I described: Naver search with his name. There are at least 10 news articles listed there with his name in the title that were published just in the last 24 hours. He's on a popular TV show right now, so he's getting plenty of coverage. (Why am I the only commenter being asked to do this? ha ha) Shinyang-i (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinyang-i - As this is an English language 'pedia it's very unlikely no one's ever heard of "Naver" hence me asking for 10, Don't take it personally :), Anyway thanks for linking :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzimir Levaneuski[edit]

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

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

Completing nomination for User:Трисектор, who added the AfD tag with the edit summary delete: no notability, self PR. ansh666 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From what I can gather, he was arrested alongside his dad after organizing a bunch of protests in Belarus, and spent some days in jail. Although he has been clearly been detained from the police many times, there isn't any indication as to why he is notable. His page says that he was the chairman of a strike committee back in 2006, and that in 2014 he led some more committees. But the organizations themselves don't seem to be notable within themselves. While his father, Valery, has been recognized as a "prisoner of conscience" by Amnesty International, Uladzimir did not gain that recognition. It is fair to say that Uladzimir does not meet the notability guidelines, as he has not had enough significant coverage to be notable enough for an article. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are reliable sources in the article. Furthermore in RU wiki notability of this person already was discussed. The result of the discussion was keep.--Lomtikov (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has plenty of reliable sources. The article quality leaves something to be desired, but quality is not a reason for deletion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth G. Eade[edit]

Kenneth G. Eade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a heavily promotional BLP. The subject is an author, lawyer, and businessman, but has achieved notability in none of these fields. His books are self-published, and have been reviewed only in venues specific to self-published works. The article is overrun with references, but the closest he comes to coverage in a traditional reliable source is a barely-more-than-passing mention in a 2002 blog post at Forbes. Contested prod. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject has been quoted as an expert in many media articles, cited as references in the article, his cases against Experian and Equifax and Chase have achieved notoriety, and have been quoted in the media as well. He has co-written and produced a feature film, Say it in Russian, which is the subject of a separate article on Wikipedia, and his latest self published novel, "A Patriot's Act," is being republished and will be on sale this summer in Walmarts, Costco, Barnes and Nobel and other bookstores coast to coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC) — Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Don't see promotional bio here, only biographic info. City Book Review, MBR, Digital JournalEContent, Washington Examiner, FPA, Nice Matin, Guardian all reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeivak (talk • contribs) — Georgeivak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. The only full-length piece comes from a Digital Journal interview, "a media business where everyone can contribute and engage"," so we don't have any real reliable sources. This appears to be written by someone close to the subject as well, thus the overly promotional tone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete. I have added references to Say it in Russian, a theatrically released feature film that the subject is known to have produced and co-written. These are traditional media such as Honolulu Weekly, La Stamps, La Verdad, The Dallas Observer and The Riverfront Times, as well as video news reels in the 16 states that the film played in, which included the subject as the producer.

http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/New+Riviera+article.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/MONACO+GAZETTE+ARTICLE+0608.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/la+stampa+article.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/la+verdad.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/starslife+article.pdf Jump up ^ http://www.gettyimages.com/editorial/agata-gotova-pictures Jump up ^ "Carmike Cinemas Hosts Premiere for Independent Film". TriCities.com. Jump up ^ "Carmike Cinemas Hosts Premiere for Independent Film". wjhl.com. 25 April 2009. Jump up ^ http://www.riverfronttimes.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-697551/ Jump up ^ http://www.dallasobserver.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-1288366/ Jump up ^ http://www.citypages.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-837865/ Jump up ^ http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/movies/say-it-in-russian-750173/ Jump up ^ http://wdef.com/news/say_it_in_russian_movie_premier_in_chattanooga/04/2009 Jump up ^ http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/carmike_cinemas_hosts_premiere_for_independent_film/23370/ Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/Russian+article+032909.pdf Jump up ^ http://sayitinrussianmovie.com/resources/http___honoluluweekly.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete.: Also added reviews on two books from notable source Midwest Book Review

Valentia Nesterova (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Valentina Nesterova[reply]

• Keep Per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book and movie reviews. It does have problems with overref but it is easily fixed. -- GreenC 12:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardomon, writing because I have seen how exacting you are on other pages. You probably know if reviews for a single movie qualifies him. But you may not realize that Midwest Book Review & San Francisco Book Review sound like real book review publications, but they aren't. I could not find a single review in an edited book review of any of his books in a "real" publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews and work was made into a feature film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentia Nesterova (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His non-fiction book is used for course material at University of Oklahoma College of LawValentia Nesterova (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Valentia Nesterova[reply]
  • You can comment as much as you want, but you're only allowed 1 !vote. I've struck all your other !votes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blow it up. WP:ADMASQ, and the antics going on in this AfD aren't doing the article any favors either. Pax 09:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• reluctant keep. Most of the sourcing is worthless. Some, like Midwest Book Review looks like an edited, selective book review, but isn't. San Francisco Book Review looks even sketchier (i.e., these appear to be commercial websites that "review" many hundreds of books each month (no real book review review 600 books a month), but are commercial businesses that generate revenue, advertising and traffic by having titles that make them appear to be real. Not clear to me that being nominated for a RHONE award is competitive (neither is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but real book awards have qualifying events that make nominations real honors). I got to footnote 19 beforee I found anything that looked like a real source. It wasn't it was a one-line promo that this author had written in his alumni mag class notes section. Sources 20-23 appear to document the fact that he married his wife. Who cares? Then , at source # 27, I came on something real. An article in Forbes a real article that describes Eade as a flimflam artist. Here is the section about Eade: "Just as in Hollywood, not everything meets the eye when it comes to this company. AmeriDream’s little office in Bermuda Dunes has been, or still is, the address for 14 other public and private companies, going by such names as Specialized Leasing, Herbalist and Cyber Vitamin. Behind the scenes is a small group of stock promoters and one very prolific Santa Barbara attorney, Kenneth Eade, who have put together companies that typically float in the nether regions of the over-the-counter Bulletin Board system. In 1998 one of the promoters, Russell (Skip) Nordstrom, of something called National Investors Council, was slapped by the Securities & Exchange Commission with a cease-and-desist order for failing to disclose that he was receiving payments from companies to issue glowing research reports. Nordstrom consented to the order without admitting or denying guilt. He was recently the head of investor relations of AmeriDream. Elliott came into this bunch when Eade–whose Russian wife dabbles in Hollywood and will be acting, if you can call it that..." It seems to sum this man's career up. Slogging on through more references where Eade promotes himself as, for example, an expert on genetically engineered foof (and the article begins to feel like a low end remake of Catch Me if You Can. There's even a sequence where this flimflam man impersonates a philanthropist (in Monaco) Then. In the final paragraph, it turns out that he once produced an actual movie Say It in Russian, with Faye Dunaway. And so, ladies and gentlemen, reluctant though I am to admit it (after giving his article a careful read, I'd rather see him arrested than given a page) I think that the movie and the paragraph in Forbes where the nature of his flimflammery is made clear do merit an article. I believe, however. That the article must be reduced to name, rank, and serial number, i.e. the Information from Forbes is sourced, along with the Faye Dunaway movie. All the rest of his smoke-and-mirrors self-promoting clap-trap needs to be deleted. (willing - even eager - to change my vote if producing a single real movie is not in and f itself sufficient for notability)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the nominator - I had almost forgotten about this AfD because I took it off my watchlist due to the many repetitive posts. IMO this is as weak a case as it gets for WP:AUTHOR#3 - is a single (vanity?) co-writing credit for a barely-notable movie "a significant or well-known work"? He wasn't even mentioned in the movie's article prior to the introduction of the infobox directory information. On re-researching, though, I do find that he's been the subject of a somewhat unusual Securities Exchange Commission lawsuit and had an interesting defamation lawsuit of his own dismissed (described here and here; actual decisions are publicly available). Still don't think that makes him notable, but it's a failure of comprehensiveness in the existing article, and supports your overall assessment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes[edit]

Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Fails WP:1E. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When will people stop using WP as a newspaper? It is not an encyclopedia's function to report on current events, only if those events can be shown to have a lasting impact. Obviously, that cannot be shown within a few days of the event happening... --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This has been a story that has been read and seen all over the world and prompted a response from the Mexican president. It's being called the Hispanic version of Ferguson with many protests in Pasco and Washington and likely will continue that way. Have you seen how much coverage this story is getting? 98.207.226.90 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, I saw that. And my crystal ball tells me that it'll be over a week from now, with perhaps a smattering of coverage if there will be a trial. At this point, classical 1E. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• so we have to get rid of it now and have to create it again in case it comes back up? Why can't we just let it wait a while to see if it still remains as a big story nationally and then delete it? How come Shooting of Andy Lopez has its article? Not saying that it doesn't warrant one, but it happened in my city and it only received national attention for one day and it eventually became a non story in my city after a few weeks, except for groups of activists. Many people in my own state other than my county and some neighboring areas have probably never heard of the shooting death of Andy Lopez but that gets an article so why can't this one which had received much more coverage and even a response from the PRESIDENT OF MEXICO? 98.207.226.90 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, my brother just had a baby son. Let's make an article on the kid. It isn't notable now, but you never know what the future might bring, so "Why can't we just let it wait a while to see if"... That's not the way it works. First we determine something is notable. Then we create an article. We're at AfD now, so the onus is on those !voting "keep" to show that this passes WP:GNG now, not "perhaps in the future". As for the shooting of Lopez article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid during these discussions... --Randykitty (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news. Should have waited before creating article to see whether this would have long term significance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While not Ferguson-level, this is clearly far more notable than the routine police shooting that doesn't result in commentary from the president of the most populous country in the hemisphere. Pax 07:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draft it - Too soon, which is why the draft is suggested. Keep it there for a couple of weeks/months and see if the affects are long lasting. Currently, it doesn't seen that it will have the long standing notability required. - Pmedema (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant and ongoing national and international press coverage.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC

• I admire your foresight; It happened 16 (sixteen...) days ago and yet you already know that there will be "ongoing ... coverage". Wow! --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not a purely local matter, given the comment by Mexican President, monitoring of the situation by federal law enforcement, and further national coverage. --Djembayz (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNOW. The case is complicated. Let me quote:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.

My view is that although that event could pass GNG, there is no way to really know because relevant sources are drowned in the WP:NOTNEWS. We could wait for the dust to settle; if the event is still mentioned in a couple of months, we can recreate then. (and no, "do not delete because it might be recreated, so let's save work" is not a good argument) Tigraan (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:This incident has received non-trivial, even in-depth coverage in a variety of reliable international sources of different types, and has been of political interest to the Mexican congress. That clearly puts it in a different league from run of the mill crime stories. True, we don't know for certain that it will receive long lasting coverage, but I think it is not unreasonable to expect that it will. Since the article is solidly based in a variety of non-speculative reliable sources already we should keep. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep International coverage. --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG Plenty of international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has adequate coverage in reliable sources. Passes notability standards. Bali88 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would greatly appreciate if the editors !voting "keep" could explain how this does not fail WP:1E. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I readily see how standards/notability can be interpreted differently by different editors, but it is common to have articles for shootings by police that become instantly notorious. I interpret WP:1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." as covering this case. There was "large coverage" of this death.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter I. Smith[edit]

Peter I. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

minor politician. no real newslinks, even less than you would expect for a politician. fails WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination, fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As A7. First District representative on the Anne Arundel County Council is not a credible claim to importance, let alone notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The consensus is that county council member is not a notable office. The main story about the subject seems to be the long, drawn-out process of his appointment, but that's also a local story. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - (notability, WP:POLITICIAN, blah blah blah). As much as I would like to press the A7 button, it looks like "First District representative on the Anne Arundel County Council" is a "credible claim of importance". After all, there might be some people (from the Anne Arundel County, probably) who view the function as important. Tigraan (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above me - Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails the POLITICIAN high bar as not an elected politician to high or sufficiently high office. Carrite (talk) 12:32, 11 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 English units. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tod (unit)[edit]

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

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English units. The content of this page would easily fit there. This is a real, albeit obsolete, unit; see A History of Agriculture and Prices in England and Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - see related AfDs at WP:Articles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit), WP:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit), and more. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not dictionary material; it's weights and measures which is the stuff of an almanac. Per WP:5, almanac content is fine and we have extensive material about weights, measures and units of all kinds. The wool trade was England's main source of income for many centuries and so this is a quite a significant matter for the English wikipedia. The topic is discussed in detail in sources such as Weighing Wool in the Middle Ages. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And also according to WP:5 Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, specifically "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article doesn't meet this standard, it is data, with no context, cited to a single source, a source that on some occasions has proven to be inaccurate. Even though it is accurate in many cases and probably even accurate in this case, it still doesn't go beyond a dictionary definition whether it's almanac type material or not. As Imaginatorium said, this should be included in an article titled Wool measurement as there is simply not enough content for this to ever be anything other than a stub, if that. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There certainly should be an article about the weighing of wool, and the series of units used for it: from [7]: "In evidence given to the 1862 Select Committee on Weights and Measures, a Mr Greenhall said that “we have the grain, dram, drop, ounce, pound, stone, score, ton. In wool measure we have a clove, tod, wey, pack, sack or last." However, the title for such an encyclopaedia article should be "Wool measurement" or similar, and not any one of the individual units.
• Should the material in this article be merged somewhere? No, because it contains zero value, just the usual Cardarelli bogus specificity and bogus precision. The page above gives a range of values for the "todd", and no doubt the spelling was also variable. Elsewhere there are Weys of 6-1/2 tods, and much local variation.
• Should there be a redirect? No, because "Tod (unit)" is a disambiguation title; no-one will search for "Tod (unit)".
• It would be really nice if we could have a sense of cooperation in the building of a better encyclopedia, instead of these crazy drawn-out arguments. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another non-notable unit page from Cardarelli. See all the OTHER discussions for why this, too, is not appropriate as a WP page. PianoDan (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Cardarelli is a dubious source, the article is poorly written ("defined" as 1/9 Wey? unlikely; metric conversion to 8 decimal places? absurd), but the material would be better added to English units and linked to there from the dab page at Tod (where no-one has bothered to add it as yet). OED agrees that "Tod" exists, as "A weight used in the wool trade, usually 28 pounds or 2 stone, but varying locally". PamD 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added a dab at Tod, but with no wikilink to English units, until someone decides to add it there as well. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Microstub based on a single source that has been conclusively proven to be unreliable. It cannot stand on its own and, if we were to have an article on wool units, none of this content would end up there. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English units. The book A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles: The Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century, Volume 168 has a wealth of information on old English units; there is a page and a half on the tod unti for wool. The book looks reliable with the few facts on the tod carefully sourced. I have added the relevant facts and source to the tod article. With this book and the sources found by Metropolitan90, the tod as a unit seems amply verified. I agree with Andrew Davidson that as an almanac, this unit should have some place on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is enough in-depth sourcing out there to justify a standalone article, that is the topic fails WP:GNG. Merge to an appropriate target seems the best course. We have an article on Wool measurement, but it seems solely concerned with fiber diameters. It is also an example of trading standards, but again that article doesn't discuss units. English units seems the best target for now, but in the interest of consensus, I would be happy with a merge to Wool measurement as well. --Mark viking (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English units per Mark viking and Metropolitan90, and as a reasonable alternative to deletion. The English units article barely mentions the topic, and it is verifiable. The book link in the !vote directly above doesn't display the book content, but here is a link that does. There are also the links provided by Metropolitan90, which also provide verification: [8], [9]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 4 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. As no evidence has been presented in favor of this article being preserved, this article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lutheran Study Bible[edit]

The Lutheran Study Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NB. Basileias (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why did you wait a week on this one? Skippypeanuts (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to wait to see the results from the other Lutheran study Bible article. If sources were produced from there, that could affect this article, then it would justify keeping it. Basileias (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not that it matters Skippypeanuts (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence has been presented that this particular edition of the Bible satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NB. @Skippypeanuts: your !vote is somewhat lacking; care to explain? Tigraan (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax mass shooting plot[edit]

Halifax mass shooting plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not my area of expertise but this reads like a case of WP:NOTNEWS and don't think it meets WP:PERPETRATOR either Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Incident happened less than a week ago, and news reports are still coming in (last RS result I see is in 1 hour). If the stream of attention died out by the end of this AfD then WP:NOTNEWS definitely goes. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per fact of too early nomination. I can see current notability through good sourcing. who knows what will happen in 6 months from now. NOTNEWS does not apply here.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete clearly WP:NOTNEWS. it is WP:CRYSTAL balling to suggest long term notability in 6 months time. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge (as a single sentence) into Columbine_High_School_massacre#Becoming_part_of_the_vernacular. This would probably be notable if there were an external terrorism angle, or the plotters actually had mowed down a lot of people at the mall. But no, there's only a single shooting in a house and some suspects with a lurid tale. Pax 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Continuing to generate national coverage in Canada, and coverage in Britain [10], the U.S. [11] as the accused move slowly through the legal process. Extensive coverage (both geographically and over the weeks since the arrests) meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now per WP:RAPID. There doesn't seem to be any consensus one way or another in the present. I recommend closing as keep or no consensus for now, and then re-nominating the article in a month or two when the lasting impact of the event can be more easily determined. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Luckily this incident didn't get much further than a plot. We can't mention every single foiled news plot on Wikipedia, because it could basically bring any news story into the main article space. And as mentioned before, Wikipedia is not an arbitrary list of news articles.Aerospeed (Talk) 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest people by year of death[edit]

List of oldest people by year of death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced table about being the oldest person to die in a particular year. No reliable sources can be found stating that X was the oldest to die in Y. Fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. PROD declined by User:JoshuaZ because: "sources are on the other lists of long-lived people. someone just needs to move them over here." CommanderLinx (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A10 Functionally duplicate of List of the verified oldest people, whose table is sortable by death date. (Probably needs some technical tweaking because it is now sorting by alphabetical order and not chronological order, but still) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to List of the verified oldest people, per Hisashiyarouin's rationale. That list is not currently sortable in quite the same way because of the way the dates are formatted, and I'm not sure how to fix that. But the lists do seem to be duplicates. Ivanvector (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep given that it is the same data at the List of Verified oldest people, the sources need to be moved over from there. Object to redirecting since the current list is not sortable in this way. If someone can find a way to make that list sortable in this way then I'll go with redirecting. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Just add ((dts)) to all the dates. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Compiles information about supercentarians that don't qualify on the modern list. Thus, it serves an independent purpose from the modern list that could not be rectified easily. --Thebirdlover (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it may need to be renamed for clarity. I haven't compared the names on the list to see the extent that they overlap but the scope of this list is such that the data does not necessarily duplicate list of the verified oldest people. It's a list of years and the oldest person to die that year rather than a list of oldest people organized by year. So for example if the oldest person to die that year was 80, the person would be listed here and not at the other list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see it now. This list is the oldest person to die in each year, the other is a list of the oldest people regardless of year of death (or currently living). They are very similar but not necessarily the same. Ivanvector (talk) 18:43, 8 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 13:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinching Penny[edit]

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

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

This is another Dan Glaser related article. Initially I wasn't going to nominate it since the film did appear to be notable and I'd originally been planning to clean up the article and remove all of the non-usable blog and otherwise self-published sources that can't be used to show notability or even used as a trivial source. However after I cleaned the article out and tried searching for usable sources, I ended up finding that the film just isn't that notable. I found one review from Flickering Myth, but nothing else that I could consider usable. I'd originally thought the Indie Fest review would be usable, but a look at their awards section on their website shows that they're the type of film festival where they hold 3-4 festivals a year and give out hundreds of awards each year- meaning that the award wouldn't be the type that would give any notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. If anyone can find coverage I'm open for compromise. Now I do need to state that I've cleaned out the article and removed a lot of sections, so you can find the previous version of the article here. Almost none of the sources were the type that would make a difference here and I kept the halfway usable sources in the current version of the article, but the sources are pretty much self-published, merchant, primary, or otherwise unusable for the purposes of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - notability of the film will depend on if any of the various reviews can be considered a reliable source. Hopefully a WP:WikiProject Film regular can provide some insight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If any of them can find more reviews or coverage (or just make a really good argument for inclusion) I'm open to keeping this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With some degree of reservation, I'd be willing to consider Flickering Myth a reliable source. However, that's about all that's here. I don't see any evidence that the Moviepie.com review is from a staff reviewer or even that the site isn't self-published. There's really no information at all there. Indiefest does seem notable, but I'm not convinced that an award is enough to save this article. What NFILM means by a "major award" is open to interpretation, but in my mind, it would include a citation to a third-party reliable source. The Moorhead citation looks like a classic press release, so I'm discounting that. I don't see any evidence that third party reliable sources have made the effort to report on this award, which does make it seem a bit trivial. I'll admit that there's room for argument here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]