Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Purge

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Purge server cache

Contents

Mohammad Baqir al-Fali[edit]

Mohammad Baqir al-Fali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mohammad Baqir al-Fali" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I can't find any reliable references for this person. He doesn't appear to be notable. Haminoon (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Anna-Lisa Christiane[edit]

Anna-Lisa Christiane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anna-Lisa Christiane" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

A Spy With A View[edit]

A Spy With A View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "A Spy With A View" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

It is clear that this show has received many productions across the world. Whether bronze, gold or silver it is still an award. The review may have been a user comment but surely it is still a review.

Planet F1[edit]

Planet F1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Planet F1" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Xtreme Drilling and Coil Services[edit]

Xtreme Drilling and Coil Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Xtreme Drilling and Coil Services" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Masters of the WWE Universe[edit]

Masters of the WWE Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Masters of the WWE Universe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

Gooseneck, Isle of Man[edit]

Gooseneck, Isle of Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gooseneck, Isle of Man" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ballacrye Corner[edit]

Ballacrye Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ballacrye Corner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Tower Bends[edit]

Tower Bends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tower Bends" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

School House Corner[edit]

School House Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "School House Corner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Appledene[edit]

Appledene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Appledene" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man[edit]

Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

2nd Milestone[edit]

2nd Milestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2nd Milestone" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Birkin's Bend[edit]

Birkin's Bend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Birkin's Bend" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

26th Milestone[edit]

26th Milestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "26th Milestone" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Brandish Corner[edit]

Brandish Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brandish Corner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Signpost Corner[edit]

Signpost Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Signpost Corner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Electronic Entertainment Design and Research[edit]

Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Electronic Entertainment Design and Research" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Apparently non-notable company. Most sources are to the company’s own website or to mere news articles. The closest claim to notability having once been apparently listed (circa 2009, it seems) on Forbes’ “Most Promising Companies” list ([1]). It’s not there now, so I can’t confirm. A search on Forbes does not turn up any articles about the company; 15 where it’s mentioned, though.

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. "mere news articles?" I'm pretty sure news coverage (and books) are all we use to establish notability anyways. A dead Forbes link is no reason to delete, as we can assume it was added by a Wikipedian in good faith; if needed, a thorough Wikipedian could go to a library to confirm. (also, Forbes seems to like covering the company in other contexts). Overall, plenty of coverage, frequent mentions in the press to EEDAR as an expert source of info, and their studies get plenty of coverage in the mainstream press (and more here). Page needs to be brutally worked into shape, though, the subheadings are appalling. Earflaps (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I admit "mere news articles" was a little terse and opaque; thanks for calling me out on that. I now realize I was just coming down with the flu (just clawing my way back today), and claim that for an excuse for my imprecision.
What I meant by that phrase is that there are news articles that refer to the company, and maybe get a quote, but none of those articles are about the company. The indication is more that they're a steady supplier of studies, and of quotes to reporters, but not an indication that the company itself is notable. The articles you cite are each examples of that.
To sum up, my observation is that the only material I can find that is actually about the company is (1) the company's own web site and (2) this Wikipedia article. In other words, it does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." TJRC (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, poor thing, hope you're feeling better! I'm sure I was much more terse than you, I was just a bit confused by your wording. I def see your general argument, as this isn't the most famous company in the world - I think I'd still stick with weak keep, partly because of the dead forbes link and overall coverage, but then I'm prone to inclusionism (and a big fan of the "lots of minor coverage can be added up into something significant" clause in GNG, which I know if very up to interpretation). Earflaps (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Road signs in Senegal[edit]

Road signs in Senegal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Road signs in Senegal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Amores de barrio[edit]

Amores de barrio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Amores de barrio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

Bangladesh–Mauritius relations[edit]

Bangladesh–Mauritius relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bangladesh–Mauritius relations" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

  • Delete - Bangladesh has not had relations wit-oh I'm sure you know the drill by now. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - should be kept according to general notability guidelines. There were official visits by Mauritian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to Bangladesh and by Bangladeshi Foreign Minister to Mauritius. There is also a good number of Bangladeshis living in Mauritius. Economic and educational cooperation also exists. Nomian (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Shoes (Tiga song)[edit]

Shoes (Tiga song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shoes (Tiga song)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Does not meet most of WP:NMG. Has not been certified gold anywhere, could not find any chartings, and has not been nominated for a major award. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Brooke Fletcher[edit]

Brooke Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brooke Fletcher" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [2] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation of the user's ban.[3] Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashleigh Lollie[edit]

Ashleigh Lollie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ashleigh Lollie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [4] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation of the user's ban.[5] Legacypac (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that because significant edits were made to it by other editors, then he has no rationale....William 15:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lizzy Olsen[edit]

Lizzy Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lizzy Olsen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [6] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[7] Content may even be machine created. Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Renee Bull[edit]

Renee Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Renee Bull" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [8] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[9] Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:
Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:
--doncram 22:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashley Golebiewski[edit]

Ashley Golebiewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ashley Golebiewski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [10] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[11] Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:
Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:
--doncram 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talyah Polee[edit]

Talyah Polee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Talyah Polee" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [12] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[13] Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:
Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:
--doncram 22:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I only renommed the first 8 off this list [14] - if 8 is too many, what is the limit please? Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kimberly Agron[edit]

Kimberly Agron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kimberly Agron" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [15] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:
Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:
--doncram 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect I'm not sure how big of a deal these pageants are in other states, but I don't think they are a big deal here in Alaska. I searched Anchorage Dispatch News (formerly Anchorage Daily News, basically th epaper of record for all major events in Alaska) and found no mention of this young lady, or even of the 2015 paegent itself. A redirect to Miss Alaska USA therefore seems like the right level of coverage for WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction I nominated roughtly the first 10 alphabetically by state. If 10 out of 50 is too much, what is the right number? Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanjay Padode[edit]

Sanjay Padode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sanjay Padode" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -Subject is lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, thus fails -WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Only decent source, I am able to find is -this. All others are passing/short mentions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Christina Katrakis[edit]

Christina Katrakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Christina Katrakis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ambassador of Iceland to Belarus[edit]

Ambassador of Iceland to Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ambassador of Iceland to Belarus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

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

where did you learn that? I've participated in group AfDs where an admin has deleted all as per consensus. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Group deletions are permitted if done in the correct way(which this seems to be). Please see WP:BUNDLE. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all except...well nothing. Delete all because of reasons I may have said way too many times. Not enough information and I am not gonna create all of those red links. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I would normally suggest simply redirecting them to their respective Country–Iceland relations articles, but these are all redirects too. Question: would this guy be considered notable? Like, his article is just a sentence... Victão Lopes Fala! 16:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agoro Community Development Association[edit]

Agoro Community Development Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Agoro Community Development Association" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

From my research, this organization appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I could be wrong, and though! Thanks to all who participate in this discussion. Missvain (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete – I guess we don't have much choice on GNG or ORG grounds. There is one page of Google results, with most of the hits being mentions in index-type articles. There were these two hits, from UN and WHO bulletins [16] [17].
    • Comment – Background, what I could find. The links in the article are dead, last update in the Wayback Machine was 2007, last update to current site at acda.respectrefugees.org was 2008. One mention in a book from 2007. So hard to say if the organization exists anymore. The author created a number of articles in 2007 – all on related refugee programs, most of them flagged or already deleted for notability – and hasn't been back since. (Apparently the community that it served in Agoro is slowly coming back [18] [19]) – Margin1522 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is[edit]

MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "Max Kolonko" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

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

Described program is quite a significant impact on the views of the public and the reception of television stations in Poland (the criticism of the establishment in Polish media). It is the most popular current affairs program on YouTube in Poland. The reason for the removal of this article may not be contradictory views of readers with the views of Mr. Kolonko. Leave. --Kszapsza (user talk) 12:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This may well be factual; however, the article doesn't make its case. As it stands, it is a PR piece and nothing more, and fails all encyclopedic standards for inclusion. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 19:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean this article to be an advert anyway. Maybe it needs some more references, but it can be repaired easily in nearest future. Sentences like "MaxTV has influenced political and social discourse in Poland." etc. aren't added to promote Kolonko's channel, but they just tell facts and statistics of the channel. On the other hand – those graphs are used as data source and they testify to the popularity of channel. Because of such popularity topic is suitable to Wikipedia. I think it has encyclopedic (Wikipedia) style anyway. Leave.
Please don't delete article without another person vote or consideration of the matter of deletion --Kszapsza (user talk) 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of news media-related deletion discussions. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of politics-related deletion discussions. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Max Kolonko. Seems like a clear choice to me. There are a whole lot of sources about this guy, mostly in Polish, so there's no question he is notable. The question is the extent to which MaxTV is notable beyond Kolonko himself, and I don't think that's the case, based on what I'm seeing. Nonetheless, his work does appear influential/notable. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sand Castles (film)[edit]

Sand Castles (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sand Castles (film)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

  • Weak keep. I did manage to find some local coverage and some mention of the awards and if it was just that then I'd probably be a little more likely to vote "delete", but I did manage to find one sole review for the film. I found one more at Film Pulse, but I'm not sure if that'd be a reliable source or not. They do have an editorial staff and the review is written by a staff member so I'm leaning towards it being usable, but I'm not certain enough so I've placed it in the EL section. However with the one lone review and the coverage so far I think that there's enough here for a weak keep overall. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Saw that one linked from imdb but dismissed it based in part on [20]. A look at WP:RSN came up empty. Todd Willcox shows no sign of being a professional film critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
(Find sources: "Clenét Verdi-Rose, Sand Castles" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "Jordon Hodges, Sand Castles" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "Anne Winters, Sand Castles" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
  • Keep No more a "promotion" than any other sourced neutral article on Wikipedia. While in 2013, it was TOO SOON for this article, I stated then that it might meet notability standards after it was released to festivals, and am happy that it's time has finally come. WP:NF is finally met.[21][22][23][24][25] Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "No more a "promotion"". Not true. This is a repost from "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures which owns Sand Castles" [26] using another sockpuppet (SPI). Part of their promotional campaign [27] " That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now." Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. Delete Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • On your sources. 1. MAF is not an independent reliable source. They are a organization promoting regionally made films. 2. another local puff piece from the creators home town. 3. assuming it's another local puff piece from the creators home town. link goes to current issue were I see no mention of Sand Castles. Did you mean another issue? (Sample feature article "Preschool teacher enters the world of her students" about "Your neighbor" who works at a local preschool.) 4. ??Really?? A link to a google search. I thought better of you. For me it comes up with imdb led in by "Your search - "Sand Castles, Jordon Hodges" - did not match any news results.". You really included that???? 5. Another google search. Have you been hijacked? "Your search - "Sand Castles, Clenét Verdi-Rose" - did not match any news results." followed by a facebook link. Seriously what's up?. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; another indy that has so far failed to attract a distribution partner for wide release (and while it may in the future, for now it's WP:Too soon). With the exception of a small local paper excited about the filming around town, there's nothing aside from film site tout material. Pax 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Pax 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Like mentioned above, I managed to find quite of bit of articles and talk about the film and Sand Castles (film) has been edited with more notable and efficient sources since AfD started and WP:NF is met. Also, since this discussion began, the film was announced alongside other notable films to be showcased in February at the 21st Sedona International Film Festival [28][29]. Though a film's trailer popularity doesn't say if a film is notable or not, I think it is worth mentioning that the film's trailer was recently released and has tens of thousands of views already on one of many channels.[30] Johnnylego88 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd[edit]

NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Significance is not clear; neither is rationale of the decision . not all cases that have been subsequently cited are notable. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This case satisfies GNG. As a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of that court are binding: [31] (subscription required). Its significance is immediately obvious: as a binding precedent it creates law that people in New Zealand have to obey. This binding effect does not depend on subsequent citation of the case (though there is plenty of discussion), but arises automatically from the fact that it is a rule of law that decisions of that court are binding. The ratio decidendi (referred to as the "rationale of the decision" in the nomination) of the case is not unclear. The ratio decidendi is clearly stated in the headnote, written by the reporter, of the report of this case in the New Zealand Law Reports at [1992] 3 NZLR 528. The sources in GBooks and elsewhere clearly think this case decided something of significance. I think I should observe that this case is cited in a number of ways such as:
Find sources: "NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corporation Ltd" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
Find sources: "1992 3 NZLR 528" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR James500 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

List of political parties in the Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of political parties in the Donetsk People's Republic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Question: the article on Donetsk Republic claims it won 68 seats in the Donbass general elections, 2014, and that [[: Aleksandr Zakharchenko]] its candidate for President, was elected. Both facts have a citation Wouldn't that make it a genuine political party? The article about Communist Party of the Donetsk People's Republic and New Russia Party have references calling them parties. If news sources call something a party, that's justification for an article, and for calling them a party. I agree the refs should be included here. If the news sources are ambiguous , the title can be changed to "List of political organizations ..." which might be a way to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
True, there were news in that regard. Could those news be qualified as reliable? Do we want Wikipedia to end up in a middle of political smear campaign? Some of those "parties" as it states in their articles about them were merged and existed for only couple of days, others do are not even registered as political parties and their credibility in question. If Donetsk Republic has a history of existence in Ukraine, other organizations were created during a conflict and their creation could be considered as part of information propaganda as hoax. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think your best step would probably be to first challenge the individual articles on the parties. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find this nomination bizarre as the articles linked to in the list are well sourced. The groups clearly exist and are covered by reliable sources. Is the nominator's real objection perhaps that he considers the organizations to be illegitimate? If so, that's not a valid rationale for deleting them or this list of them. Is registration really required for political parties in the DPR? If so, the solution is not to delete the article but rather to add all registered parties to the list. We'd end up with a wonderfully complete list, and any parties which are notable but unregistered could be specially marked. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It really does not make any sense to create plain list of four parties, only two of which deserve very brief wikipedia pages. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete because I'm not sure this requires a whole list for only two parties or three articles, and there really isn't any other content, here. Template:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic and Category:Political parties in Donetsk People's Republic are probably enough. I don't know of any other parties in this group, though I assume Ukrainian parties still exist in the area. The links to terrorism and other controversy (such as being uregistered/banned in Ukraine) may actually add to notability, though these political divisions are unrecognized internationally. —PC-XT+ 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) —PC-XT+ 03:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This would be best handled through inclusion of "Parties" and links to the various parties in a footer. I agree that a list of four parties with no significant historical parties missed, would seem to be insufficient to sustain a freestanding page. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – No indication of significance, or indication of their actual existence. RGloucester 02:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Apparently the individual parties do exist, aso a list is justified. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Catley v Herbert[edit]

Catley v Herbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Catley v Herbert" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Significance is not clear; neither is rationale of the decision . not all cases that have been subsequently cited are notable. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This case satisfies GNG. As a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of that court are binding: [32] (subscription required). Its significance is immediately obvious: as a binding precedent it creates law that people in New Zealand have to obey. This binding effect does not depend on subsequent citation of the case (though there is plenty of discussion), but arises automatically from the fact that it is a rule of law that decisions of that court are binding. The ratio decidendi (referred to as the "rationale of the decision" in the nomination) of the case is not unclear. The ratio decidendi is clearly stated in the headnote, written by the reporter, of the report of this case in the New Zealand Law Reports at [1988] 1 NZLR 606. This case decided, in particular, for example, the meaning of the expression "financial assistance" in a statute, putting a gloss on that expression, and thereby altering what you have to do (not just in this case but in all future cases) to comply with that statute and, indeed, any other statute that uses that expression and which is in pari materia (ie the context in which the expression appears is sufficiently similar): [33]. The sources in GBooks and elsewhere clearly think this case decided something of significance. James500 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous Regional Party[edit]

Autonomous Regional Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Autonomous Regional Party" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "Autonomna regionalna stranka" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge No doubt the party existed and had local representation (see e.g. this (Croatian)), but not much more in terms of WP:GNG, so a redirect to List of political parties in Croatia would be in order. GregorB (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep if it has local representation it's notable. We normally tend to be very inclusive for political parties to avoid the possibility of bias. and especially to avoid Cultural bias in areas where we have few accessible sources . DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mentor Xhemali[edit]

Mentor Xhemali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mentor Xhemali" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Keep. The article does not say much, but what it says is true. There are less known Albanian people who have wiki articles. I don't see any reason to delete it. The article needs a lot of improvement though[1][2][3][4] Mondiad (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
References
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 07:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the sources noted above. Some sources appear to exist (through snippets) in a GBooks search. The article about him in Albanian Wikipedia (which I read via Google Translate) makes energetic, albeit unsourced, assertions of his significance. With due concern for avoiding systemic geographical bias, I lean toward keeping this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kanosvamhira[edit]

Kanosvamhira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kanosvamhira" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 21:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hocus Pocus (video game)[edit]

Hocus Pocus (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hocus Pocus (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, Needs some help from WP:VG to clean up, but seems notable. Game is currently sold on GOG [34]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Gaming4JC (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide any sources? How does it "seem" notable? Being sold is not notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Comparing against WP:VG/RS I see your point. There are a few sources [35][36][37][38] and an appearance in an old magazine [39]. But only IGN would be notable and it is more or less an IGN stub. - Gaming4JC (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 3D Realms. Best known as an Apogee (3D Realms) game unless someone digs up some offline sources. It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search, and there's nothing sourced to merge to its parent. It'll only be worth a mention if we can find more coverage, but it remains a good search term. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar  23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the dePRODer, my research at the time indicated at least the need for keeping as a Redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mayor of Calatrava, Romblon[edit]

Mayor of Calatrava, Romblon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mayor of Calatrava, Romblon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Local office of a municipality with a population of around 10k. No significant coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Sources are primary and are tangential to the subject of the article. Vrac (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge with Calatrava, Romblon. The office does not have enough coverage to meet notability requirements, but it does contain some information that should be added to the "local government" section of Calatrava's article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Joel Fram[edit]

Joel Fram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Joel Fram" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

  • Delete. No sources to establish notability. I also performed I Google search, and discovered nothing of significance (just a few passing mentions). --Biblioworm 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Short on depth of coverage, but seems quite prominent in his field, and there's no shortage of sources that could be used in the article, e.g. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. --Michig (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article contains multiple sources that discuss subject's contribution to major cultural projects and academic institutions. Subject is also cited as "notable alumni" in separate Wikipedia article.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.7.113 (talkcontribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Internet Evolution[edit]

Internet Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Internet Evolution" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Coverage of a launch doesn't make the topic instantly notable. Shii (tock) 03:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is lame, but I can't imagine how a 'zine with 22 "blue names" associated with it could not be notable. Pax 23:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The references in the article are all blogs, press releases, announcements, no actual references and when I did a search (making sure to include UBN since "internet evolution" gets a lot of unrelated hits) all I found were those same or similar refs. Its just a defunct web site that never got off the ground. Not notable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Koehler[edit]

Paul Koehler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paul Koehler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Relisting for further consideration because my first nomination failed to generate any participation at all after two relists, and an editor is resisting any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect even though AFD consensus is not required for a redirect. The problem here remains that WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to a musician whose notability is within the context of a band rather than as an independent topic — this article is relying mainly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few appropriately reliable sources are not about Koehler per se, but merely namecheck him within the context of the band. So nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). (Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told, which did generate participation and was closed as a redirect for the same reasons that are applicable here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • DELETE - This person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The references which were accessible or still there lack any extensive coverage of Paul.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There's sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. And in borderline cases, the decision should be not to deny readers the content, which won't be available elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish any actual consensus one way or the other. It's not a question of "the correct answer" — if there were a "keep" consensus, then the article would have to be kept even if I still disagreed with that — but there has to be a consensus one way or the other. A "no-consensus" close, which is where the first one landed, resolves nothing — especially when it was "no consensus because nobody participated". Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tales of Tahitian Waters[edit]

Tales of Tahitian Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tales of Tahitian Waters" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zane_Grey#Works, but leave the history behind. I found some mentions in books that give off the impression that there may be other sources out there but I can't really find anything to really show notability as a whole. The two book sources I've found are good, but they aren't enough in and of itself to show notability. The claim about the Old Man and the Sea isn't really backed up by anyone other than Grey's son (from what I can find), otherwise that would itself show notability. I figure that the lack of sources on the net might be attributed to the publishing time periods (1930s, 1990s) being before the advent of the Internet, so leaving the history could help in case any coverage could be found to show notability for an article. I do think that some of the claims in the article (the claim of being the first to catch such a monster sized fish) should be mentioned somewhere in the main article, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unlike the run-of-the-mill cash-cow westerns he cranked out (and Hollywood snapped up), this one is offbeat and unique. While not as well-known as the westerns, sport-fisherman are well aware of it, and even beat-up first-editions copies go for several hundred dollars at auction despite not being particularly rare. Pax 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. Auction price is not a measure of notability for books at Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - there are plenty of books (see GoogleBooks) that reference this book, some in passing, some in slightly more detail. There's no significant analysis of the text that I can find. I'd not be opposed to a redirect but this would seem to have a niche fan base and nobody is trying to promote it so I can't really see the harm in having a proper record of it here. Stlwart111 03:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 18:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Here are some sources I found about the subject:
    1. Milazzo, Lee (2000-03-19). "Books In Brief". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30. 

      The article notes:

      Tales of Tahitian Waters By Zane Grey (Derrydale Press, $19.95) Some critics have suggested that Zane Grey's tales of Tahiti provided Ernest Hemingway with the inspiration for The Old Man and the Sea. Maybe so, maybe not, but readers can now judge for themselves, thanks to the publication of this attractive new edition of Mr. Grey's quests for the Giant Tahitian Striped Marlin (he captured a 464-pound marlin after 83 days of trolling and eventually landed the first thousand-pound blue marlin). The text is illustrated with more than 30 photographs of fishing matters and native life taken by the author.

    2. Chan, Gabrielle (2001-07-03). "Round-up of cultural treasures". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30. 

      The article notes:

      When he became rich and famous, he was able to pursue his passion. Zane Grey was considered the greatest sports fisherman of his time. A true story he wrote about going 84 days without a strike in the waters of Tahiti, "Tales of Tahitian Waters," provided the inspiration for Ernest Hemingway's famous "Old Man and the Sea."

    3. Elliott, Keith (2006-10-01). "Many riders of Grey the grumpy sage - Sports Week Fishing Lines". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30. 

      The article notes:

      It’s a darn shame he was such a vain, pompous, unlikeable man, because he wrote some of the great fishing books. Works such as Tales of Swordfish and Tuna, Tales of Tahitian Waters and Tales of Fishing Virgin Seas are, even today, among the finest works on big-game fishing.

    4. Elliott, Keith (1993-07-25). "Fishing Lines: Reeling in the Grey legend". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2015-01-30. Retrieved 2015-01-30. 

      The article notes:

      Grey's adventures resulted in some of the greatest books on big-game fishing: Tales of Fishing Virgin Seas; Tales of Tahitian Waters; Tales of Swordfish and Tuna, but once again, things went wrong. He took a British ex-army captain, Laurie Mitchell, to New Zealand as his companion but he never forgave Mitchell for capturing a 976lb black marlin, then the largest fish ever taken on rod and line. Their relationship ended in a legal battle, which forced Grey to sell his beloved boat, Fisherman II, at a huge loss.

      ...

      Ironically, his fishing books are now hugely sought after, and cost upwards of pounds 100. And on Wednesday a big-game reel named after him is expected to make between pounds 1,500 and pounds 2,500 at Sotheby's in Billingshurst, Sussex. For Grey, this would have been the respect he sought but never found during his life.

    The book is reputed by several sources to be the inspiration for The Old Man and the Sea. The book was published in 1937. It is highly likely that a book considered to be "among the finest works on big-game fishing" and "are now hugely sought after" (from Keith Elliott of The Independent) has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    The book probably also passes Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion 5:

    The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

    Cunard (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Another source about The Old Man and the Sea:

    On the eighty-fourth day he caught, with rod and reel, a giant Tahitian marlin that weighed 1,040 founds. Although Grey tried desperately to get the creature ashore, the fish was ravaged by shark. Some Grey fans today credit Grey's experience with inspiring Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. See Zane Grey, Tales of Tahitian Waters (1931), and The Zane Grey Collector, 3:1:12–13.

    Jackson, Carlton (1989). Zane Grey. Twayne Publishers. p. 157. ISBN 0805703381. Retrieved 2015-01-30. 

    Cunard (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility[edit]

Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. To the nominator, do you have access to the two sources that supported the Manchester claim? The links no longer work. I would assume good faith on the part of the original editor, that the sources said what they said, unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. --doncram 04:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This 2013 source, provides support on the importance of the facility --- it gives eco-tours even --- and provides support that it was the basis for U.K. designs including Manchester (with its source being not Wikipedia but rather this 2009 Manchester coverage (subscription required, I don't have access). Other hits in the search above also include info. --doncram 04:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (report) @ 14:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The references for the "was the inspiration..." statement are both dead links. If we removed this un-verifiable information, the facility would be truly non-notable. Piboy51 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Responding to Piboy51's comment: Umm, for one thing, a deadlink is a once-online-but-now-offline source, which is fine, still. Second, there's ONLINE support for the information. The [2013 source I provided above (search on "Manchester", gets to p.19) states: "The system design at Lubeck has been the inspiration for three facilities planned for construction by Viridor Laing, a UK waste management and infrastructure investor consortium, as part of the Greater Manchester Waste PFI project." That's one online source, in addition to the (deadlink) sources in the Wikipedia article. And the 2013 source gives footnote indicating that [this 2009 Manchester coverage provides support, which is another source. And there probably are other off-line reliable sources. So Piboy51 rationale to delete appears invalid. I voted "Keep" above. --doncram 01:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't see evidence of notability in the sources. Also, I don't see any evidence of an article on this facility on the German wikipedia. Presumably it is not called the "Lubeck Waste Treatment Facility" there. It is likely called the Luebeck Mechanisch-biologische Abfallbehandlungsanlage, and its one of many such plants.--Milowenthasspoken 03:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. But the Lubeck facility is a prominent example of its type (Mechanical Biological Treatment), for whatever reason it emerged as the model. I don't know if its type is common in Germany, I see no indication of that. But it is the one that was model for the Manchester plants. And here's an additional example: it is a model for the European Union's EU LIFE+ 2009 Program, a greenhouse gas-reduction program "thaat will enable Waste Management Authorities and other stakeholders to substantially reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions resulting from their waste management (WM) activities" program goals stated in an initiative for improving waste management for country of Turkey. Among the list of case studies for (what i assume to be best practices in) each type of WM, the Lubeck facility is the case study for "Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) with wet AD". Here is the case study on Lubeck MBT, with description and facts and statistics (some to be added to the wikipedia article).
Thanks Milowent, searching on Find sources: "Luebeck Mechanisch-biologische Abfallbehandlungsanlage" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR or Find sources: "Lubeck Mechanisch-biologische Abfallbehandlungsanlage" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR actually yields some hits. For example, this webpage with facts about the facility, from its operator:

Google-translated-to-English version.

Try also Find sources: "Lubeck MBT" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR and Find sources: "Luebeck MBT" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR. Searching on Lubeck MBT brings up this documentation of study visit by Suffolk and Northamptonshire officials to Lubeck and other German WM plants: "Thirteen councillors and officers from Suffolk undertook visits to four German waste processing plants on the 1st and 2nd March 2006. These visits were organised by Enviros on behalf of the Defra Waste Implementation Programme. A party from Northamptonshire also accompanied the Suffolk people." Notes on Lubeck included.
With additional usage as model in EU-funded program, I think it's notable (already voted Keep above). --doncram 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cantata++[edit]

Cantata++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cantata++" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

  • Keep - the book coverage appears to be both significant and reliable, making the software notable. Pinging @Lor: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I don't see a book listed.
      • Then you obviously didn't look very closely. There are three listed in the article already. Many others can be found here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, you mean the passing mentions in the three books. That's does not meet significant coverage. I thought you meant that there was a book written on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
          • A "passing mention" is a sentence or two. If you think 7 pages (The Handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists) is a passing mention, then with all due respect you have no clue what "significant coverage" means. That probably the longest, but I would several others with more than a page of coverage from the above link. An avaerage length news article on a subject - which would always be considered "significant" - would be less than half a book page. Clearly 1-2 pages of book coverage in 5+ distinct sources, and 7 pages in another, is way sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Note: ThaddeusB acknowledges further below (search on "my bad") that the 7 page reference is unrelated. --doncram 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per accepting the article, the sources assert the notability and per ThaddeusB the book coverage is more than enough to let it pass. If not Keep though, i would suggest Move back to Draft namespace. LorTalk 01:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry Lor. You didn't give a reason as to why you accepted the article and it's still full of bad refs. You never answered how you read all of the supplied references in only 130 seconds, a message I left on your talk page. And if it fails, it should not be moved back to draft because editors like you continue to move it to main space without actually checking the refs! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, assuming i have not done the most basic thing of checking the references in an article does not really make you case, i did read the references and deemed them good enough for Wikipedia (Reading them does not necessarily mean reading the content in them). Further more, you have not stated why they are bad references. LorTalk 06:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        • That's the point, Lor. It looks to me like all you did was read that there were references, not click through to the reference links to see what was there. Even though there were two notes about previous AfDs and the edit history showing serious problems. Furthermore, you didn't read my original nomination: they do not provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To clarify that, most do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Some are clearly not independent of the subject. I don't see any that meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep [I have been asked to comment because I have been involved with the WP:AFC process and I suspect I commented on at least one of the prior AFD discussions, though I have not checked] I have read the article and the references. Some references are passing mentions. If the sources were simply a couple of passing mentions my view is that this would disqualify the article, but there are sufficient of those to add up to a couple of half decent references. I'd like to see fewer case studies and more media coverage. There are useful references, too. Those qualify it for a place here.
Having considered this as a whole article with all the references, rather than by disqualifying every references that is not, of itself, a large tract of significant coverage, my view is that the article is borderline, but is just on the right side of the border. It requires improvement in referencing, certainly, but I view there as being just sufficient to merit keeping the article.
It seems to me that the passage of time will allow more and better references to appear. Searching for them and adding them to the article is the area for the community to concentrate on, surely? Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep checking several references shows enough coverage, and independence. So this now easily passes WP:GNG. Last AFD I said the article was not ready, but it is good enough now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete—Taking a look at the sources in turn (mostly for my benefit):
  1. An (anonymous?) MS thesis, subject mentioned in two sentences and a table. (Sergey Uspenskiy, I assume we'll be crediting your work properly soon.)
  2. Flint 2009. I looked at the paywalled version of the chapter. Three sentences and four instances in tables. The use of Cantata++ is incidental to the subject of the paper.
  3. Wieczorek 2001. Two full paragraphs describing an earlier version of the software.
  4. Mathur 2008. Single paragraph (modulo whatever gbooks isn't displaying).
  5. Test 2012. Two sentences, does not describe the software.
  6. QAsystems. Product documentation. Reliable for uncontroversial details but not useful for notability.
  7. Automotive Electronics 2012. Three paragraph notice concerning software release.
  8. Emenda case study. Anonymous and undated. This doesn't look independent but I'm not going to worry about tracking it down right now.
  9. TVS case study. Anonymous and undated. Same concern about independence.
  10. Second Emedna case study. Cantata mentioned 11 times over 2 pages. This really looks like the folks writing Cantata helped on the writing.
  11. Meteonic. Not independent.
I very much agree with Fiddle that this is a borderline article, but for me it falls on the other side of the border. WP:NSOFT suggests software is notable if [t]he software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. The best WP:RS listed above describe this software as one choice among many. This is a high bar for software outside the consumer space where reviews are few and far between. However, without this additional material, we're left with articles that are based entirely on non-independent sources. I do want to thank the editors who have worked to improve the article. I have no issues with the writing, claims or length. But based on the sources provided, I'm still not convinced the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous other book sources available, including one with 7 pages on it - see link above. Of course a source writing in depth about a previous version is valid to establish notability, as notability is not temporary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@ThaddeusB: The Cantata described in Ross 1996 is a "graphical substitute for the Unix shell". The software described in the article is an Eclipse plugin. There may be a relationship, but based on what I have in front of me these are two different pieces of software that share a common name. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You are probably right about that specific source, so my bad there about not reading more carefully. However, there is still what I would call significant coverage in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security in addition to Wieczorek. Mathur is likely more than a paragraph as at least some text is clearly cut off from the GBooks preview. Those three should be sufficient for notability. Additionally, C/C++ Users Journal, Unix Test Tools and Benchmarks, and The C++ Report all look promising, but hard to say for certain from the brief GBooks preview. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@ThaddeusB: I hope to be spending some time at the libraries of UOregon and UCB next week, so if you get me a list of sources you'd like me to track down I'll see what I can do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lesser Cartographies: Your assessment lines up with mine. Thanks for looking at the sources in such detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lesser Cartographies: It would be helpful to determine the length of coverage in [46], [47], and [48]. Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the problem with saying 'x' paragraphs in 'y' sources is that it ignores context. In this case, the software's claim to importance is in its widespread use in civil engineering. However, those claims are largely unsourced or have brief mentions. Sources need to verify things that make this software recognised enough by the wider world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    How do we determine if something is (sufficiently) well known to warrant an article? I would say evidence of coverage by RS is much better evidence than a source saying something is well known. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    The question, and indeed one of the main sticking points for all complicated AfDs, is what qualifies as "significant coverage". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • MoveI have been involved in past deletion discussions and would like to acknowledge the recent contributors to this article for the great improvement. But, I think that it should be moved back to the draft namespace. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @StudiesWorld: You said keep, which means keep the article in main space, but stated move it to draft space. Which is it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, haven't been on Wikipedia in a while. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
        • To StudiesWorld, now your "vote" shows as "Move", but that would imply you wish for the article to be renamed and moved to a different title in mainspace. I think your vote (and that of anyone else seeking to "userfy" or move to Draftspace the article), would be better termed "Delete": you want for it to be deleted from mainspace. Copies of any deleted article can be provided to userspace or to draftspace; that is routine and is not up for discussion in this AFD. I don't have a position about this article yet myself. --doncram 14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, "move to draft" and "userify" are standard !votes, distinct from "delete".
@StudiesWorld: Normally, one would !vote move to draft if he/she felt the article had severe problems that could be fixed (and then the article returned to mainspace). Your comment makes it sound like you think the article should be permanently placed in draft, which isn't an option. What do you hope to accomplish by having it put it draft space? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Editor ThaddeusB mentions a reference of "7 pages (The Handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists)", presumably an article in a handbook of that name, but I don't find that specifically named or linked in the current article or in this AFD discussion. Searching on "handbook" within the article gets no hits. Could a more specific reference be provided? --doncram 14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I said above "my bad", that specific source (which is named in this AfD for the record) is about a different piece of software. The rest of the sources I named/linked above (some used in the article, some not) do constitute sufficient coverage to establish notability, however. Sources existing, not being used in the article, is what determines notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • To User:ThaddeusB, I think you could make your case better. This AFD discussion is pretty confusing to read. I think it would help within an AFD discussion for you yourself to amend your original comment, if you later realize it is incorrect, by strikeout(perhaps with parenthetical explanation). Here, you state/imply there's a listing of sources that you named/linked somewhere above, but I find no such list. I do see a couple unlinked sources named by you within your first "my bad" statement: quoting you: "However, there is still what I would call significant coverage in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security ..."), Also earlier you mention 3 books that were or are linked from the article, but don't identify which they are. And the article has been changed during this AFD. It's really hard to follow.
  • About the apparently-different software named Cantata covered in the 7 pages of the Handbook, the article should be revised somewhere near the top to mention that there was/is a different software product named Cantata that does something else (what?), but it is not the subject of this article. Probably with footnote to the 7 page treatment.
  • I'm not going to try to sort this out any further, in order to "vote". Bye. --doncram 21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Reading the article and having a look at the distinct! sources the article shows a good potential to be improved over time. There has been a lot of relevant and informative edits over the last two years which valorized the article. But, I also agree with you that the article still shows some (smaller) problems/inconsistencies of the references, which could be fixed over time. @ThaddeusB: By the way, did you get anything in the library ? SimonBauer7 (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you were directing that question at me. I struck out at UOregon and UCBerkeley wasn't open this weekend. At this point, I expect we can close this as no consensus or keep, either one of which would be reasonable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Or delete and salt. The sources are not sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - CSDed two of the above, PRODded one other. List of unit testing frameworks is a total train wreck of a list. Yes, software articles are, I find, one of the biggest problem areas on Wikipedia and also one of the least consistent. There are just so many niches that fly under people's radars, often not even linked from any other page. Everyone once in a while someone stumbles upon one which leads to some related problematic pages, but in the end someone's always kind of irritated (understandably) because there are so many other articles with similar problems that aren't being deleted. That's the basis for this essay. Bringing them to people's attention as above is one way that happens. Otherwise they would just sit there and be terrible indefinitely, displaying some text copied from the company website and a list of features with no sources, for example. I digress. The present case is a toughie. Certainly not one like those listed above. There are sources here, but it's not a slam dunk by any means. I was leaning weak delete but I think I'm going to leave it at a comment in order to say that, although the refs aren't great, they're not too bad and I think it's very promising that there are people who show a vested interest in trying to improve it according to Wikipedia standards. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  - The Herald (here I am) 13:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Randevyn[edit]

Randevyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Randevyn" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not even sure there are sources out there to make subject pass WP:BIO. -- Sam Sing! 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kundan yadav (earthan)[edit]

Kundan yadav (earthan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kundan yadav (earthan)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - fails WP:BIO and previously deleted twice under A7 with different titles. Likely either an autobio or a COI creation. -- Sam Sing! 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete -There are absolute zero refs. No real sign of significance. I think, I would A7 it (afd here is gonna kill community time and serve no purpose). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Roland Willows (cricketer)[edit]

Roland Willows (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Roland Willows (cricketer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Madison Guthrie[edit]

Madison Guthrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Madison Guthrie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Renominate for deletion per rational and consensus at [49] Doing individual nominations as per User:DGG. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Related discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:
Related, new AFDs (for articles started by different editors) are:
--doncram 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Trinidad and Tobago relations[edit]

Bangladesh–Trinidad and Tobago relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bangladesh–Trinidad and Tobago relations" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

You wrote: "can easily be merged", then why are you asking for deletion. Merge and redirect is a talk page issue. Having a third deletion discussion a few weeks after closing the previous discussion is disruptive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep All - This endless series of challenges to subpages of Foreign relations of Bangladesh is getting tiresome and disruptive. Wikipedia is not paper; Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world (population bigger than that of Russia). These subpages keep the already sprawling Foreign Relations page mentioned here from becoming unwieldy. It is a topic of academic interest and clearly encyclopedic, even if the individual subpages viewed in isolation might not at a glance seem to be. Carrite (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • There's also Nigeria which has a bigger population than Bangladesh and there isn't many of these articles on that. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"Bangladesh is one of the most populous countries in the world" is a rather ridiculous reason for keeping, as it gives a free pass for say Bangladesh-Tuvalu relations or indeed any combination regardless of the state of relations, population is not a relevant criteria, if so you would argue small countries have little chance of bilateral relations . I do wonder if Carrite actually made a search for sources. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree (and thanks for putting me in an edit conflict XD). I mean it makes as much sense as to have Bangladesh-Ottoman Empire relations. They should only be created if something REALLY huge happens with them, like India and Pakistan. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep All Standard almanac entries. An almanac isn't useful unless it is complete. If I were to sort all the bilateral relations by relative importance, these would not be at the top of the list, but someone has to be at the bottom. I am not opposed to taking the smaller entries and merging them onto one page, and using the bilateral titles as redirects. But they should not be deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all all of these articles should be kept according to the general notability guidelines. There are already multiple references with significant coverage in all of these articles, please have a look at them. Nomian (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Farrow[edit]

Stephanie Farrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stephanie Farrow" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Snow talk 12:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. There seem to be no secondary sources which directly address the subject; she is mentioned in passing in some sources as the sister of Mia Farrow, but no reliable sources speak as to the notability of the subject herself. Snow talk 12:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "'Delete"' per mom and per reasons outlined by Gene93. Note- there is also discussion to delete the article of a related subject "tisa farrow" on that articles talk page, for similar noteworthy concerns. Shark310 18:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA)[edit]

Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E (excluding teen events), sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [50] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. She teaches preschool now so unlikely to be doing other things to warrant a WP article Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2012 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

LacyJane Folger[edit]

LacyJane Folger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "LacyJane Folger" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only with WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [51] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2012 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: My own presumption of good faith would be better served if Dravecky produced the sources he claims exist. Of the four sources in the article, three are primary and promotional sources (pageant websites) which cannot support notability and the fourth is seacoastonline.com, which appears to be an umbrella website serving several small New Hampshire and Maine weeklies, which even if it were proved to be a reliable source would run afoul of WP:GEOSCOPE. Would Dravecky care to come up with some significant coverage in significant media outlets? Ravenswing 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute[edit]

International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "International opinion on the South Atlantic sovereignty dispute" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

  • Clear content fork with an apparent violation of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV to boot, alas. The extant article it is a fork of appears to be policy compliant, and covers both major positions adequately. Collect (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep & Template to Merge Reading the archive I don't think consensus was very much against the author. I do not see it as clearly WP:OR and WP:SYN. I don't think it is written as an essay. I don't think it is a one sided selection. I do think it is a content fork but do not think a "merge vote" here alone would be appropriate, as this might well end up a controversial merge via the backdoor. We should keep and add merge templates MyTuppence (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for all the reasons I gave at the time of the discussion that WCM notes. I would suggest that the fact that the article is orphaned - despite major potential for inward links - implies that it was not intended to be found by editors who disagreed with it.
The whole thing is a mess of WP:OR and always will be. It is WP:OR because it combines multiple primary sources - statements of international governments - and uses them to draw conclusions (stated and implied) that cannot be reasonably supported based on the available sourcing. For example, look at the list, which side has more international support? Obviously Argentina. But no reliable secondary source will tell you this because in the real world it is not clear-cut fact that Argentina has more support. Moreover, there are several individual instances of states on the list whose position would be sharply disputed and could not easily be defended - because either the statements are contradictory or the reporting is contradictory. The user writing this article has come to one conclusion for each state listed. S/he might easily come up with the opposite conclusion in most cases here. Remember that, in this dispute, there are states that have appeared to switch sides twice is as many months.
What this means in turn is that the list is irretrievably WP:POV. Again, it always will be. Part of the point of WP:NOR is that, particularly in controversial areas, you cannot achieved neutrality because there are not the sources to allow you to determine what neutrality is. This article is highly biased toward Argentina. If somebody else wrote it (e.g. by taking the general international principle that silence is implicit support for the status quo) it might be highly biased toward Britain. Or, one might find that it is inconsistently biased, skewing things in favour of Argentina with one sentence and Britain in the next. But it will never be neutral - that is an impossibility because of the reliance on WP:OR.
Such a list is not something that has not been tried before. The article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute used to have a map of countries categorised with support for each side. It was removed for precisely the same reason as this should be deleted. Those reasons also mean that any attempt to merge will violate WP:NPOV. But they would also be biased for another reason - and that is that it would inevitably vastly overstate the importance of the international opinions in this particular dispute. Kahastok talk 13:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is a real mess of a fork. I don't see why or how it could be saved. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Brittany Wiser[edit]

Brittany Wiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Brittany Wiser" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [52] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
How does a couple short and WP:ROUTINE articles in the Billings Gazette establish notability? That site's current "hot topics" are Shooting at hospital-Boy Scout theft-Closed restaurants-Mountain lion video-Heights stabbing-Rape charge [53] none of which sound notable enough outside Billings for a Wikipeia article. I did learn she beat 12 other girls to get her crown in Montana. Is that lasting notability? ttacking my credibility with copy paste crap posts is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia with a volume of copy-paste nominations hinged on an untruth about the creators of the articles in question is "not cool". Snide comments about the news in Billings are distractions, not arguments based on facts or policy. - Dravecky (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Your opinions, not based on facts or policy, were soundly rejected in the Group AfD. You wanted to deal with these one by one, now you call that attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia? That kind of attack is dangerous. The sourcing to a local news site in Billings is truly underwhelming and clearly WP:ROUTINE. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep on an invalid deletion rationale. The subject here has won the Miss Montana contest in 2009 and the Miss Montana USA in 2011, and made appearances on national television in both the Miss America 2010 and Miss USA 2011 national contests, so how anyone could think that BLP1E could possibly apply here defies belief. In the United States, most beauty pageant contestants are not professional models, nor will they ever become professional models, so the WP:NMODEL guideline really isn't applicable at all here. WP:ROUTINE, cited above, applies only to events, not to people. Finally, as noted by Dravecky, above, the accusation that this article was created by a sock is flat-out untrue, and is in total violation of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I've only nominated 10 8 from the batch of 50 so far. Two others were deleted already based on other's actions. There are thousands on these article created by socks or SPAs. If at a time is too many, how many can we go through at a time again? Ejgreen77 - you can't have it both ways. If they are models they fail model. If they are just high school or university students like you argued elsewhere, they are notable for a single event or at best a couple events. Interestingly they are often referred to by their title, not their name, decreasing their notability. I've also discovered that many state level, and for most countries, county level "winners" are simply appointed by a modeling agency to be Miss Whatever at the pageant. These are private businesses and we could create a Miss Wikipedia World Contest, appoint editors to it to represent places, and select a winner on some arbitrary basis. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Channing Pierce[edit]

Channing Pierce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Channing Pierce" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [54] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. If she appeared in a movie she was not credited, or even listed as having any role I could find. She got to meet Donald Trump with 50 other girls at once in NY though. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:Masanook who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jillian Wunderlich[edit]

Jillian Wunderlich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jillian Wunderlich" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [55] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on a group of these articles the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and ask for an immediate closure The nominator has put up no rationale for this AFD. The editor who created the Wunderlich article is not banned. Even if they were, WP:DENY is not a valid reason because this article saw significant edits by other editors....William 16:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
State level winning has been deemed not notable. What significant edits? Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Madeline Mitchell[edit]

Madeline Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Madeline Mitchell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [56] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Her impressive recovery from a car accident is not notable enough for WP, nor is her planned career teaching elementary school. Legacypac (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as more that meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. ABC News is hardly anybody's "local paper" and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources for multiple events beyond the car accident. Article was created 3.5 years ago by User:TonyTheTiger who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Human interest stories about a car accident (even nationally published ones) don't earn you a Wikipedia article. That requires sustained coverage in RS for something significant. And before you comment on the number of deletions I'm posting and calling it bad faith, prove I'm incorrect one by one. User:DGG says we can't batch these pageant articles 10 days into a long debate with 18 involved editors, so now we have to deal with them one by tedious one. It has been previously established that WP:NMODEL is the best fit for contestants - if not that then what? Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The coverage is because she won various beauty pageants, including Miss Alabama USA, not merely because she was in a car accident. - Dravecky (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (as page creator) State Beauty pageant winners who have done other things that helpt them achieve GNG should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect - she won exactly one state level contest. Based on that criteria every State fair blue ribbon winner earns a WP article. Its a single event. Fails BLP1E and its of local interest only.
Comment Your state fair ribbon comment is preposterous. The title of 'Miss Alabama' is something once a year to the winner of the state's major beauty pageant not some contest at a state fair....William 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. She is the winner of a major state beauty pageant. That makes her notable....William 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lissette Garcia[edit]

Lissette Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lissette Garcia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [57] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This editor has evently not checked the article. The creators username is a strong clue that they are part of the corporate article building effort, even if this acct was not caught and banned. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
First, the Miss America and Miss USA organizations are not related. Second, an editor's username doesn't always speak to their origins or motivations. (Or does "Legacypac" represent a conservative political action committee, as the name suggests, not a person?) Third, an article created 4.5 years ago by an uninvolved editor is by definition not part of a "mass creation of articles" by a "sock farm". - Dravecky (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Holly Allen[edit]

Holly Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Holly Allen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [58] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in November 2011 by User:Halen6 who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It is evident this user did not even look at the article and is copy pasting the same attack against me. The group nomination was consensus delete but User:DGG decided to keep based on an opinion about how bundling should be done. Please look at this article on its merits, or complete lack thereof. "Fremont County’s Community News Stream" talking about her speaking at a Rotary meeting does not establish notability, and neither does the home page of corporate promoter sites do much for us. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

'Comment Thanks for pointing out the creator of Holly Allen is Hallen6 who only edited this article and the related one for the title, including introducing copyvio twice. I can't see any possible self-promotion or corporate promotion going on here, and no possible connection between Holly Allan and Hallen6. Legacypac (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gentry Miller[edit]

Gentry Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gentry Miller" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [59] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in June 2007 by User:Pageantqueen87 who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Update: I have found numerous references from reliable third-party sources published around the world for this subject and have used them to improve sourcing for this article. - Dravecky (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Good you provided some ROUTINE human interest stories and/or press release efforts. How is she notable again? Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
She won the Miss Kansas Teen USA pageant then six years later won the Miss Kansas USA pageant, both of which garnered national and international recognition. These events are far from what's described in WP:ROUTINE. - Dravecky (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Karina Brez[edit]

Karina Brez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Karina Brez" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced (routine local "girl wins something type coverage") and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [60] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Leonardo[edit]

Michelle Leonardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Michelle Leonardo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [61] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. NBA.com is hardly anybody's "local paper" and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in May 2012 through the AfC process by User:RRRRRYYYYYAAAAANNNNN who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
How any dancers for the Boston Celtics warrant their own WP article, even if listed on the NBA website? Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Leonardo won the Miss New Jersey Teen USA crown in 2008 and Miss New Jersey USA in 2012, both of which are notable statewide pageants with national and international coverage in reliable third-party sources. She's no more simply a Celtics dancer than Paula Abdul is simply a former Lakers dancer. - Dravecky (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Show us the WP policy that winning a state pageant is notable. Winning a blue ribbon or a tractor pull at the state fair is just as notable. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Audrey Bolte[edit]

Audrey Bolte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Audrey Bolte" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E. Other then winning a state title her claim to fame is riding a horse at University. Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete winning state title is not good enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Correction Different list of winners, different year. I only renommined the first 8 off the closed group AfD to start with. This and others have the same problem but are different. Sure would be easier to deal with these in batches, would save DGG from needing to posting the same incorrect message so many times. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Manhunt International 2015[edit]

Manhunt International 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Manhunt International 2015" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Delete The only editor is blocked for sockpuppetry while creating articles about pageants. The Banner talk 14:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nyas[edit]

Nyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nyas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -Agreeing with nominator, the article doesn't either make sense to me. Anyway, it fails WP:GNG. I'm open to amend my !vote if someone is able to find "sources" and fix the article to make it reach the GNG standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Manhunt International 2014[edit]

Manhunt International 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Manhunt International 2014" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Relies on company sources, plus a blogspot site. Future event=TOOSOON. Created by a sockfarm. Also the title 2014 does not match the event to be held in August 2015 and according to this http://www.thepageantaficionado.com/calendar/ the 2014 version was cancelled. Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Genesis Davila[edit]

Genesis Davila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Genesis Davila" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No one has been able to provide sources for anything in this article created by banned Socks [62]. Clearly fails WP:NMODEL if editors can't prove she exists. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Sam Sing! 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is any possible proposal of redirect, you can share one. Finding sources in English language is actually difficult for this subject. Noteswork (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Miss Earth 2013[edit]

Miss Earth 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Miss Earth 2013" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This reads completely like an Advert for this business. Most contributors are banned socks of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Super Show 3[edit]

Super Show 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Super Show 3" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spout) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Some contents with references were added after "Nomination for deletion" was marked. Please determine whether the page meet the criteria for content of the encyclopedia or not. - 830701like (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the effort, but the only additional thing I see is this--at best that's a review of sorts of one show, at worst it simply regurgitates a press release from the company. Note how the second paragraph starts: "According to a press release from SM Entertainment on Monday,..." Drmies (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Boppin'[edit]

Boppin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Boppin'" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

  • Comment: The creator's page is up for deletion (Jennifer Diane Reitz). This could probably be redirected into her article and then we could consider whether or not the sources for the game and website (Happy Puppy), paired with the JDR sources would make her pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz. I think that individually there are good reasons to be worried that the articles for JDR and this game would fail notability guidelines, but I think that if we lump the pages together then we'd have about one good page that would pass. I'd actually prefer to have this all together under the name of their programming group Accursed Toys, but then the info about JDR just wouldn't really fit well in that article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. At a glance, there aren't enough sources to justify a standalone article. (I don't remember why I originally thought the article was a good idea.) A redirect to Jennifer Diane Reitz seems appropriate if that article survives AfD. --Fuzzie (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Independent city[edit]

Independent city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Independent city" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The article is almost completely unsourced and seems to be pure WP:OR. Not a single source supports the definition used in the article. Delete and redirect to City-state or Independent city (disambiguation). Zanhe (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of current ARM cores[edit]

Comparison of current ARM cores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Comparison of current ARM cores" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

It's a subset of Comparison of ARMv7-A cores, thus no reason to exist.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Computer Jilmart[edit]

Computer Jilmart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Computer Jilmart" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article could probably be improved in a more encyclopedic style rather than a lexiconic manner itself. Sometimes it's inevitable that an encyclopedia supposed to be used as a dictionary pertaining to the context, especially when a dictionary is lagging the needs of the reader. It's also not possible to include an encyclopedia in a specified division of knowledge and that's why it's remarkably known as Encyclopedia. Galtikka (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Banana Pro[edit]

Banana Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Banana Pro" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. Can't find anything other than press or press-like launch announcements, shopping links and trivial mentions. No reliable in-depth coverage.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears to be a real product that has only recently started shipping. It was reviewed at Hardware-libre on January 2, 2015. Product is listed for sale at DX.com, Alibaba.com and Aliexpress.com. (The link is not provided because the site is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. You can go there and search for Banana Pro.) Aliexpress states that there have been 64 orders. There are 8 reviews. The earliest is January 4, 2015. --Waynegoode (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • the first review consists of getting it out of the box and looking at it, not using it; hardly a proper review. As for sales links they don't count towards notability – it takes nothing for something to be listed for sale at hundreds of sites.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could not find any reliable secondary coverage of note. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina Film Critics Association[edit]

North Carolina Film Critics Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "North Carolina Film Critics Association" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This article was deleted a mere three weeks ago, and all of the issues presented in that nomination remain. I personally think that, if deleted again, a temporary salting would be appropriate to prevent re-creation while the topic is still not notable. Sock (tock talk) 06:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I just "welcomed" this "new" editor and, as it had not yet been done, notified them of this AFD discussion.[63] Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Retail Week Conference[edit]

Retail Week Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Retail Week Conference" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Nonnotable event. Footnotes say only kinda "Yesterday <a wise guy> spake at Retail Week Conf", i.e., no reasonable independent coverage of this forum per se. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Retail Week. I don't doubt that it's a major retailing conference, but it's very hard to find coverage of the conference itself, as opposed to who spoke there. I couldn't find any. No other articles link to it. One sentence could be copied over from the lead to the destination article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (babble) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

WCTZ-LD[edit]

WCTZ-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "WCTZ-LD" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

station does not yet exist, article is mostly un-sourced speculation and original research - see WP:BALL Deunanknute (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Have to agree; usually I'm all about finessing the info, but for now, everything down to the callsign meaning is complete speculation. It needs to actually come to the air before we can call this notable. Nate (chatter) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy – According to the criteria in WP:BROADCAST we can't tell if a station is notable until we know the programming. But the author has created many good articles on TV stations and will no doubt do a good job with this one too, once it comes on air. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete as too soon. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Angel L. Vega[edit]

Angel L. Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Angel L. Vega" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (comms) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (dialogue) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 13:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I removed all refs that did not mention subject, and there's not much left. Searching for him or his company does not bring up anything useful. Fails GNG big time. -- Sam Sing! 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails GNG and there is not enough coverage. Noteswork (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Da BackWudz[edit]

Da BackWudz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Da BackWudz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 02:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll see what I can find. I'm fairly certain that their song "I Don't Like The Look Of It" got national rotation (it's how I heard of it), but of course I'll have to find sourcing for this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The coverage was out there, but you kind of had to finesse Google to really reach it. In any case, their first album received quite a few reviews and it also charted on Billboard 200, so that's enough to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Vantana Row[edit]

Vantana Row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vantana Row" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

"Altho it isn't a reason for deletion, it is not clear whether the author is talking about members of the group, the group or other groups that they have performed with."
You are correct. As for your comment, I will clarify specific links of the referenced websites and clarify the subjects of each individual fact.

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

    • They have articles I just need to look more up to satisfy this petition. Thank you, John for the check. This article will be sufficiently informative after this trial period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellastname (talkcontribs) 08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Michaellastname: Please read WP:PGL, like the note at the top of the editmode of this page instructs, and also I'd suggest WP:AFDEQ,WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:AFDFORMAT. You seem to not understand what it takes for an article to be on Wikipedia. Also,please sign your comments here and on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). John from Idegon (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No significant, independent coverage so far; if any appears, then the article can be recreated afterward. (WP:TOOSOON). Neutralitytalk 05:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kumarasinghe Sirisena[edit]

Kumarasinghe Sirisena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kumarasinghe Sirisena" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The subject of the article is not notable and is written like a LinkedIn entry. Dan arndt (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yaesu FT-901[edit]

Yaesu FT-901 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yaesu FT-901" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

  • Redirect to Yaesu (brand). I agree with Noyster's comments regarding the notability of the product. Currently the company's page has a long list of product models, so perhaps some introductory info could be inserted from this page as a brief description of the product. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Amateur radio has been notified about this debate. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 00:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I note that another Yaesu product is now up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaesu FT-290R. On the company's article, there is a long list of more than 100 products. 23 are bluelinks and the rest are redlinks. After looking at some of the other articles, it may be the case that all of them belong here at AFD. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 03:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer Diane Reitz[edit]

Jennifer Diane Reitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jennifer Diane Reitz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've fixed a few of the cites and she is mentioned in some academic texts and other works. ([64], [65]) I'll see what else I can find, but offhand I think that she'll probably squeak by notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I do think that it'd probably be best to merge Happy Puppy into her article, though. It's such a brief article that it could easily be merged and redirected to the appropriate section. I'd advise this as opposed to vice-versa since JDR has received notice in the earlier mentioned academic texts for her other actions/works, so it'd make sense for her to have an article that incorporates info about Happy Puppy as opposed to an article about the site that had information about her. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete, in spite of good efforts by Tokyogirl79. I looked at the main sources currently used in the article; while it appears Ms. Reitz is mentioned in several high quality independent sources, it is only in passing. I do not see high quality sources that treat her as the central focus, so (unless we have missed some significant works) she does not meet the general notability guideline. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Peteforsyt: What do you think about merging this together with Happy Puppy? I think that together they could make for a decent article that passes notability guidelines as a whole. She created the website with her two domestic partners but she's always been the face/name of the company as a whole for the most part. I think I'll try to do a test merge of information to see how this looks. I won't redirect the main article for Happy Puppy until there's a consensus though, as I don't want it to get deleted if this closes as delete for JDR. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not super gung-ho on keeping this, I mostly just want to make sure that this merge is taken into consideration so that if this is deleted and it gets contested, we can say that it was considered. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like Boppin' is up for deletion. That could probably be redirected to this article as well, I think. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 00:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not overwhelmingly happy with the sourcing on the page, but there's enough there to pass notability guidelines. I think that if we lump together the article for Boppin' and Happy Puppy together with JDR's article, there is enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole. I'd actually prefer for this all to be in an article under the group's name of Accursed Toys since Happy Puppy and Boppin' were technically released by the group, but the information about JDR wouldn't fit neatly in that article and part of the sources about her are needed to really help push notability. It's not the strongest keep and I do think that this should probably be revisited in the future if notability guidelines grow more strict (which is one of the few givens on Wikipedia), but for now she seems to pass notability guidelines. It's not the strongest keep but I think that if we get rid of the individual pages and make this the main article for everything, it'd pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Dyro[edit]

Dyro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dyro" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC Cult of Green (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete - I can find interviews, including this one but I'm seeing a lot of name association with him, which would contradict WP:NOTINHERITED --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak Keep I had to ponder on this but I was able to dig further and find some coverage from some reputable magazines/ news feed. Including Vibe magazine. BlackJack58 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

HomeFix Corporation[edit]

HomeFix Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "HomeFix Corporation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: A company going about its business, but accreditations and placings in top-25 or top-3% of non-notable rankings do not substantiate encyclopaedic notability; searches are turning up a couple of mentions of telemarketing judgments but I am seeing no coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Greer Fire Department[edit]

Greer Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Greer Fire Department" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Town of 27,000. The only newsworthy event happened before the department was founded. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete – Good for the town, that they are keeping the history of the Fire Department. But I can't see how this is notable for WP. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Josh Brody[edit]

Josh Brody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Josh Brody" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Only minor updates, many by bots, since creation. Still no references. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Can find no evidence of notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest[edit]

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG with just a few hits on Google (with respect, only in western script. Indian script/search engines might reveal more) The Banner talk 14:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gladrags -I'm able to find some sort of coverage of subject in some Indian reliable sources such as, -[66], [67], [68]. However, they simply are not adequate to establish GNG and justify a standalone article. Given that parent article "Gladrags" is a stub one, we may expand that one extracting contents from sources found. We must not add contents from existing article to parent article, they all appear to be an WP:OR being unsourced. As there are few reliable sources that mention the subject and there exists a parent article that is stub, a redirect to the parent article appears to me a good alternative to deletion.
I will also here note that there appears to be some coverage of subject in the Indian magazines too while doing Google Books search, but one is unable to take a closer look at them as they almost are having snippet view. Even if that's the case, -WP:RUNOFTHEMILL applies. The notability of the parent article is not established to this point, and we may use all these sources to make that one better. We really can't use same set of references to make two standalone articles. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the sourcing is poor at present, I can't fathom how these national contests could not be notable. Aside from poor refs, the article is quite well-done. The tables would serve as a handy central repository for various existing pageant contestant articles failing WP:Bio to be redirect/salted into. (In fact, even if the closing admin does delete this article, I recommend he not do so before checking all the "blue" names first.) Pax 08:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Gladrags Manhunt (when the contest was not unisex) was popular contest, their winners are notable actors John Abraham, Dino Morea, Zulfi Syed. It also sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International. The female Contest, Megamodel, was never too famous. The contest was also part of a reality show on Channel V in 2013. There is coverage of the contest [69] in the winner's biographies, plus annual coverage (photos) etc. in various magazines, telecast on TV etc. 2008 Outlook, 2001 India Today, 2008 Times of India. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Obsolete shows[edit]

Pre-Obsolete shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Pre-Obsolete shows" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pax 08:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Katrin Johansson[edit]

Katrin Johansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Katrin Johansson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pax 08:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

N (singer)[edit]

N (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "N (singer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I don't see any reason why this person should be notable outside of his own band, VIXX; the only thing he seems to have done by himself is be on TV a few times and guest in a video clip or two. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to VIXX. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of individual notability outside of his group. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect I see no true reason for a single/individual article. Redirect to VIXX BlackJack58 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Let's Go (2010 G-20 Summit song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Let's Go (2010 G-20 Summit song)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This wasn't even a regular single for sale, it was given out at the Asia Song Festival that year for a 1000KRW (~1USD) donation to UNICEF. Guess they counted those as "sales." It falls in the same category as the tourism-promoting songs. And yes, this article is being used to claim independent notability for nearly everyone who participated in it as well as fill up their templates. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So Goodbye[edit]

So Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "So Goodbye" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Please see WP:NSONG: this song may have charted, reaching a very modest #28 on the Gaon chart, but it needs to pass the WP:GNG first, and I see no evidence that it does--the sourcing here is allkpop and Naver, and those aren't reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. It's rare for songs to merit their own articles, per WP:SONG. It's even rarer for an individual song from a Korean drama soundtrack to attain notability. No evidence that this one did. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oi Jhinuk Phota Sagorbelay[edit]

Oi Jhinuk Phota Sagorbelay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Oi Jhinuk Phota Sagorbelay" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Though the song exists and its singer may well be notable, I could find no evidence that the song was notable per WP:NSONG. Possibly some such evidence exists in the Bengali language, but I couldn't find any there either. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not enough notable to be kept in wiki. Although the singer is well notable. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Samina Chowdhury as a worthwhile redirect (it's mentioned directly in the article). The real question is whether anything in the artist's article can be sourced. czar  14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Stykz[edit]

Stykz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stykz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No evidence that this software is notable. All the references lead to blogs, web forums, or non-independent sites. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete All I could find were sites offering this software for download; no significant coverage in third-party sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Shiva[edit]

The Shiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Shiva" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Merged to The League Deunanknute (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If content has been merged, the correct action is to redirect, not delete. That will preserve attribution history per Wikipedia's copyright rules. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

SafetyNet[edit]

SafetyNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "SafetyNet" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

Kakran[edit]

Kakran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kakran" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article lacks reliable sources and is fully based on self promotional sources. Mahensingha Talk 19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. A search of Indian newspapers here did not reveal anything of substance; none of the current sources are inline citations, and while that is not a reason for deletion, there are other problems with the article. What the article lede does not clarify is why is this subject notable? Needed are references which are neutral, in-depth, secondary, reliable, which address this issue clearly; if they can be found I am willing to change my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nightingale of Asia[edit]

Nightingale of Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nightingale of Asia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

An article that can not be expanded further. Can't find much information about the award. Only found that it was awarded to Asha Bhosle in 1987. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Asha Bhosle, where it's already mentioned. Many reliable sources mention this award, e.g. [70][71][72][73] and it seems that this was sometimes used as a nickname, e.g., [74][75], so it could be a reasonable search term. But I also found no particular need for a separate article about the award. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Arxiloxos. Feel free to point out if I was mistaken here, but to me this article seems to claim that this award was a one-off event and exclusively given to Bhosle. IMO it is reasonable to consider the award a synonymous title to Bhosle and redirect there. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Major General Purna Chandra Thapa[edit]

Major General Purna Chandra Thapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Major General Purna Chandra Thapa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable, creator has claimed alot in article without any solid proof, it needs solid sources. Lacks notability and coverage in bunch of reliable sources. Fails WP:BLP. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 20:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per SOLDIER and to counter anti-Third World bias. Nepalese officers don't get as much press as their First and Second World counterparts, but in addition to his UN posting, he is mentioned here and there,[76][77] even in a Wikileaks document. Plus he's a major general, not a lowly brigadier. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added several posts he held. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Imran Pratapgarhi[edit]

Imran Pratapgarhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Imran Pratapgarhi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (yarn) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -There appears to be some bit of coverage of subject in few reliable sources such as, -[78], [79], [80], [81]. However they are not enough to help subject meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG standard (majority of the sources are only having passing/short mentions). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am looking forward to a redirect proposal. Anupmehra is right about numerous mentions in reliable sources. Noteswork (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Manas Robin[edit]

Manas Robin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Manas Robin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (yarn) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

New America Media[edit]

New America Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "New America Media" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
(Find sources: "New California Media" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

  • Keep. Per the Knight Foundation, this is "is the largest, oldest and most diverse network of ethnic media outlets in the United States." [90] It's covered in many sources, for example [91] [92] [93] [94], and a Google search shows that it is referenced and/or consulted repeatedly in connection with stories about ethnic media. Passes WP:GNG, and, considered as a media outlet, also passes WP:NMEDIA #4 and #5.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (negotiate) @ 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) @ 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Redirect to Pacific News Service. Not enough RS clout; article comprised of OR puffery. Pax 23:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wenceslao Garcia[edit]

Wenceslao Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Wenceslao Garcia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This article was already deleted once after an AFD. It was then recreated just a month later. Since it was almost a year ago, I don't want to use G4, but I propose an AFD discussion on the topic. The concern is the same: the notability of the subject. The article does not cite reliable independent sources with significant coverage.Sited sources are either written by the subject, or just mention him in passing. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hotel Kandahar[edit]

Hotel Kandahar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hotel Kandahar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Well, it's a notable skiing resort, and Hotel Kandahar is the top listed hotel in the town, and it also came up in a list of hotels in Andorra which seemed notable when compiling the list, plus somebody thought it notable enough to photograph. It would be good to find more on it, but even as it is there is at least a mention and some basic coverage in reliable sources. I'd imagine that there would be significant coverage of it in Andorran newspapers and probably magazines featuring skiiing in Andorra which can't be accessed online. If nothing else can be found on it then a merge into a List of hotels in Andorra with a good summary for each might be the way to go. Personally though, I think having articles like this makes us that more valuable as a resource and should be nurtured as much as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Hello, the WP:RS with the brief mention you added in Spanish is also the only one I could find in my WP:BEFORE, If no additional sources with significant coverage are found to justify inclusion, I would vote as you suggest to merge it into a List of hotels in Andorra if this article is created and if it meets WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge: Visitors to the town are likely to search for information on the hotel. There seem to be enough independent sources to justify a stand-alone article. I would also have no problem with a redirect to a section in a list of hotels in Andorra, with that section holding the information. I think technically this AfD should close as keep, then the merge be done afterwards if agreed that the topic is worthy of WP coverage, but is not substantial enough to deserve a full article. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
All hotels are mentioned in travel guides and most have passing mentions. For this hotel to meet WP:GNG and have it's own independent article, we need to find significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that treat the subject extensively.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge, possibly to El Pas de la Casa, article on the ski resort, though I can't tell if the hotel is part of the resort entity or not. Or, better, merge to a List of hotels in Andorra, though currently that is a red-link. There is a list of Andorra hotels within big List of hotels, specifically at List of hotels: Countries A#Andorra, but the apparent formatting practice in that list-system is not to provide detailed coverage. So a separate proper list of Andorra hotels, allowing for more coverage about each, is needed, i guess. I see other examples of split-out lists, e.g. link from List of hotels: Countries B#Bangladesh to List of hotels in Bangladesh, although that is not a great list-article. All items in a list should be sort of notable, too, but need not meet Wikipedia notability standard. Hmm, started one at Draft:List of hotels in Andorra. Help develop this and/or move it to mainspace, anyone? I can't move it myself due to an editing restriction. I think it is already okay as a minimal article. --doncram 23:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The discussion is leaning merge, but a concrete merge target has not emerged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is Draft:List of hotels in Andorra, submitted to AFC. Anyone but me could move that to mainspace and then this AFD could be concluded with Merge. Or this AFD couldl be concluded with "Merge soon, when possible". --doncram 05:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: List of hotels in Andorra now in mainspace. Per Northamerica's comment, this AFD could now be closed with Merge to that. --doncram 19:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Climb Online[edit]

Climb Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Climb Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: What is in question here is the website and/or business of this name. The available coverage is reheating the final of a reality TV show. Even this site itself seems to contradict the page text: "Here at www.climbonline.co.uk we provide information for rock climbers based in the North East of England. We are not an Online Digital Marketing agency" [95] Who knows what the future will bring but at this point this fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jordon Hodges[edit]

Jordon Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jordon Hodges" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

1 listing only
2 marketplace
3 short piece with trivial coverage of Hodges
4 article title changed to deceive. passing mention only. Does not verify claim made (only supporting, not starred)
5 does not verify claim made, no mention of Hodges or Mary’s Buttons
6 imdb
7 local interest piece
8 listing only, does not verify claim of premier
9 press release
10 listing only, does not verify claim of award
11 mention only, does not verify claim of award

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

  • This is a repost from "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures which owns Sand Castles" [96] using another sockpuppet (SPI). Part of their promotional campaign [97] " That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now." Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. Delete Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If we ignore WP:ADHOM arguments or poor claims and admitted transparencies of two years ago, we may look instead to the topic itself to determine if actor/filmmaker Jordon Hodges OR his works have enough coverage to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG and WP:BIO... or not. If the article had been created by an experienced editor, would we gauge it more harshly or less? Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per coverage by multiple independent sources such as this [98]. Sand Castles is a notable mainstream independent film that afd's consensus is quite clear. Valoem talk contrib 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • An indiscriminate local interest puff piece that lacks any depth of coverage about Hodges. I disagree with your analysis of the Sand Castles afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Photon etc.[edit]

Photon etc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Photon etc." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I was also unable to find any indpeth coverage. Mostly all that can be found is listings in company directories of various websites. I found one article talking about a research product they released 2 years ago, but it seemed like it was just copied from another WP:SPS, just not enough to establish WP:CORP. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are sources about some of their research, but I can find any independent sources that cover the company in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX 01:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources examples include different societies' websites such as [29] and [30] and well known journals such as La presse [2] and Le devoir [3] where the history and the research and development of the company can be found and various scientific journals like Applied Physics letter [20], Progress in Photovoltaics [21] and Biophotonics [24] where complete descriptions of the technology can be found. This is without mentioning the coverage of the different spin-offs of the company which also give notability to Photon etc, see: [11] and [12]. With all those sources, the article meets the criteria of notability WP:ORGDEPTH. - LauraIsabelleDB 18:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Early Registration[edit]

The Early Registration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Early Registration" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - It probably could have been deleted under CSD A7. There do not seem to be any independent sources that discuss the website in any depth. Fails WP:WEBCRIT.- MrX 01:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Julian jordan[edit]

Julian jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Julian jordan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC Cult of Green (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Funky Diamonds[edit]

Funky Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Funky Diamonds" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. This article has been tagged for notability for almost seven years. The article's only reference is not primarily about the artist. BenLinus1214talk 02:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • very weak Keep two albums on major record labels (Sony?) so may slide past with WP:NMUSIC . There are some very weak hits on google books, mostly german language. Also German and ?Czech language WP pages offer some (weak) support, although it looks like the equivalent of an AfD occurred on the German WP and the article was strongly considered for deletion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Panoz PZ09[edit]

Panoz PZ09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Panoz PZ09" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

no references, no search results, vehicle not believed to exist Deunanknute (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep definately not a hoax, but article needed to be generalised. --Falcadore (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

U. T. Downs[edit]

U. T. Downs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "U. T. Downs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Being the mayor of a small US town does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Prod was disputed; other than being a small town mayor/sheriff, only other claim to fame is being mentioned in a 1925 encyclopedia of Louisiana OhNoitsJamie Talk 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. He is in the Henry E. Chambers 1925 History of Louisiana with his own biography. A History of Louisiana, (vol. 2), pp. 245-246, by Henry E. Chambers. Published by The American Historical Society, Inc., Chicago and New York, 1925. This alone should meet notability concerns. That is a major work of pre-1925 Louisiana history. There is no restriction listed in the Wikipedia guidelines in regard to mayors and the population of their cities. Nor are sheriffs specifically mentioned. City council members are not mentioned; there are twelve articles on city council members for Bangor, Maine, a city of 33,000, much smaller than Rapides Parish, Louisiana, of which Mr. Downs was sheriff but larger than Pineville, where he was mayor prior to being sheriff. I found two out-of-state newspapers with articles on U. T. Downs. There won't be much else on the Internet about him since he died in 1941. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment From WP:NPOL: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[11] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. I fail to see how a small town mayor or sheriff would meet that guideline. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment It also says "local politicians" can be covered with significant news coverage. The Chamber history should alone meet the notability test. Bangor, Maine has twelve city council members and eight mayors. So if a mayor/sheriff does not qualify, how does a city council member in Bangor, Maine, qualify? Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)A "local politician" should cover a mayor or a sheriff, or in this case, one who held both offices.Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is a two page encyclopedia article about him, and newspaper coverage, he will satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

F. Gregory Holland[edit]

F. Gregory Holland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "F. Gregory Holland" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and no substantial coverage online from WP:RS, just passing mentions and lists of his recordings on Discogs, CDbaby, etc. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedaway[edit]

Speedaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Speedaway" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I checked Google, and I didn't find much beyond a few school sites posting the rules. I'm not convinced it has enough notability for an article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete unless something more is shown in terms of notability. There are many games played in school PE departments that don't get articles - I can't see one on Coastguards and Pirates (which definitely makes use of a very wide range of muscles and agility...). At present, there's too much reliance on two sites in the referencing, and I've put a 'citation needed' on the claim to being world-wide. Peridon (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Highland Mills Fire Company[edit]

Highland Mills Fire Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Highland Mills Fire Company" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Small town fire department in NY fails WP:GNG, only source is primary. Vrac (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio[edit]

Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

non-notable per WP:ORG Deunanknute (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Google search for "Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio" (in quotes) shows only facebook and business listings. non-notable per WP:NONPROFIT Deunanknute (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The organization recently had a name change from Hebrew Free Loan Association to Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio. Please see recent articles one the organization: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=%22hebrew+free+loan+association%22+cleveland&safe=off. I am surprised to hear that a continuously existing 111-year-old non profit that has served over 25,000 people in an area as small as Cleveland can be non-notable? Davide101 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's 110 years old and the article already has several reliable sources; searches for <"Hebrew Free Loan Association" Cleveland> identify others, such as an entry in the Encyclopedia of Cleveland [99]. If this long-lived charity is deemed insufficiently notable for its own article, some of the content and sources from here might be appropriately incorporated at Gemach or International Association of Hebrew Free Loans. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article in the Cleveland Plains Dealer was expressly about the subject. Pax 08:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

South Tyrol quality mark[edit]

South Tyrol quality mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "South Tyrol quality mark" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

NN trademark advert for regional goods. Promotional in tone with little to no secondary sources not immediately associated with the products being promoted. Previously CSD under slightly different title for copyvio. Gaff (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep South Tyrol/Alto Adige is well known fot the quality of its foods, an article regading is quality mark is notable.User:Lucifero4
comment not to press the point... But whether or not the cuisine from this region is tasty is outside the scope of this review. The question is if there are reliable secondary sources to confirm notability of the trademark. Gaff (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pax 08:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

AB Elise[edit]

AB Elise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "AB Elise" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Title is a company, article is only about a "product" design, no indication of notability per WP:CORP Deunanknute (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
How about moving this to Eco-city 2020 and removing the spam? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
commentI don't think "Eco-city 2020" should get an article at all. It's a conceptual design. I haven't found any reference to it being "officially" considered for construction. Deunanknute (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
comment from a quick search; both[100] of those[101] appear to have been approved, then cancelled. Deunanknute (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Corey Schou[edit]

Corey Schou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Corey Schou" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

While the subject of this article has made contributions to his academic field, I do not believe that he has passed the threshold of notability required by WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, the article appears to be mostly self-authored, a violation of WP:SELFPROMOTION. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. His University Professor title gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C5 despite the relatively weak citation record. But it's only a weak keep because apart from that the evidence is less clear to me and also because of the autobio issue. The article could stand to be stubbed back to something more encyclopedic; I have made a start (removing the listings of his courses and grants) but more could be done. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    WP:PROF#C5 requires that the professor's university be "a major institution of higher education and research" (emphasis mine), and defines "major institutions" as "those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity". I would not say that Idaho State University has a reputation for excellence or selectivity in either education or research, much less both. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sources indicate that he has been a fellow and a board member for (ISC)², as well as editor-in-chief of the organization's journal. I have no knowledge regarding the significance of the organization or its journal, but I'm just putting this out there. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Movavi Video Suite[edit]

Movavi Video Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Movavi Video Suite" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

non notable, unable to find non trivial coverage from reputable sources per WP:CORPDEPTH Deunanknute (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 13:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (orate) @ 13:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion is about this articles merits, not others (see WP:OSE). Deunanknute (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bye Bye Sea[edit]

Bye Bye Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Bye Bye Sea" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Three years have passed since the creation of the article, there is not one reliable source that discusses about the band. It clearly fails WP:GNG. TerryAlex (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see references of the cameo TV appearances and references of the record label they're signed to. The article seems to suggest that the group has verifiable sources, yet none are referenced? If no references are added to back up the material written within the article, I would have to agree that this article fails to meet the requirements of having reliable and verifiable sources, in which case, delete. WeAreAllStars (talk) 9:16, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The link to their official site is dead but I found much more info by searching with their Korean name, 안녕바다 through Naver. Seems they use Twitter and Facebook now instead, both of which are active. I got some hits in Korean media, as well, through Naver, including a long interview in the Kyunghyang Shinmun. Looks like they are not typical kpop and I think there is unlikely to be much info in English, but it's probably out there in Korean. Their Korean Wikipedia article is also short (like most KR WP articles) but indicates they released another album in 2013. I'm not saying they definitely pass notability, but I think they definitely could. edited to add: They are on Fluxus Music's homepage, so that much is legit. Shinyang-i (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - just adding that if kept, this article should probably be moved to "Annyeong Bada" or "Annyeongbada", as I found no evidence they ever translate their name. The name was only transliterated (romanized) on Fluxus' site, not translated. BBS could redirect. Shinyang-i (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, you can try adding a paragraph with some references to the article, because it does not look good right now. :)--TerryAlex (talk