User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 15:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro	9 years ago	0	1648	0	1167.67
SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek	9 years ago	1	5175	0	739.18
Ravindra Kumar / IAS	9 years ago	4	7063	0	681.73
Ilaria Latini	9 years ago	0	3383	2	467.95
Gentry Miller	9 years ago	1	3848	0	435.86
Airfox	9 years ago	0	1411	0	433.59
Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu (2nd nomination)	9 years ago	0	11085	2	423.3
1986 Virginia Slims Championships	9 years ago	0	3749	2	418.8
Trac: Music Traditions Wales	9 years ago	1	4816	2	418.19
Locs Sunglasses	9 years ago	1	4203	2	415.11
2nd Milestone	9 years ago	1	3916	0	412.89
Appledene	9 years ago	1	3935	0	412.81
Missi Hale	9 years ago	1	1858	0	402.22
Dennis Delemar	9 years ago	1	2273	0	395.22
Kaveh ebrahimpour	9 years ago	0	1353	0	394.19
DaviX	9 years ago	0	4338	0	393.13
Uma Kumaran	9 years ago	1	4192	0	393.02
Sharon Maas	9 years ago	0	3481	2	392.15
Nitai Pons Pérez	9 years ago	0	3497	2	391.95
Treet.Tv	9 years ago	0	2400	1	381.44
Lee Shi-ah	9 years ago	0	2479	1	381.39
Dairese Gary	9 years ago	0	2682	1	381.04
Aquarius tour	9 years ago	0	1574	0	380.22
Sobuj Barta (Children News Portal)	9 years ago	1	1834	0	379.33
The Compound	9 years ago	0	2499	1	377.33

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro

1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This sounds like a local bar in a small town with no history. And it's not even open anymore. It operated for all of three years and nothing important seems to have happened there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strassburguesa (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 01:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Single-location, apparently unsuccessful, short-lived, now-closed restaurant. The article lists a few references but they are standard here's-a-restaurant-in-our-area type stories. (I was almost fooled by the Huffington Post reference into thinking it got national coverage; turns out that was the Los Angeles Huffington Post.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as above. This really needn't have been relisted... Neutrality^talk 06:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek

SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Light rail stations are not notable until actually placed into use, which will not happen with this particular station until this September. Conifer (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to see the policy basis for the claim, "light rail stations are not notable until actually placed into use" which would seem to be contrary to many other policies and guidelines. Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway, for example, and Planned high-speed rail by country are full of such proposals and plans. I know of no specific policy that differentiates between heavy and light rail, but I'm more than happy to be pointed in the right direction. Regardless, the article in question doesn't have any sources and that's what we should be focussing on. There's plenty of local coverage; anything beyond that? St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added some local news stuff but couldn't find anything beyond Oregon. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll amend that; I believe that specific proposed/under construction transit stations are often not notable until placed into service, because they tend to lack many sources other than the project itself. When they are actually operating, there is usually more reliable coverage compared to earlier construction/planning stages, where details are more fuzzy. Glancing through a list of transit projects, it seems that heavy rail/subway projects usually have independent articles for their stations, whereas light rail projects do not. I suspect this is less a function of the modal difference than because subways and heavy rail are more expensive and often more controversial, thus garnering significant news coverage. Conifer (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand; makes sense. Logically, yes, that may well be the case, I just wasn't sure the policy basis. For the record, still haven't found any other sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - If this station was simply proposed, then the nom might have some validity to their statement, but there is no such policy or guideline that forbids the articles about future stations, no less ones that are under construction and will definitely open such as this one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:18, 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 01:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Not all light rail stations are notable. Some are merged on their line's article. We can always recreate the article or request an undeletion if notability is proven after this stop opens. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Those guidelines are for "unverifiable speculation", not verified and confirmed as this topic is. Even the nom understands the station will open in September. --Oakshade (talk) 03:11, 11 February 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 12:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ravindra Kumar / IAS

Ravindra Kumar / IAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a civil servant, leaning extremely heavily on unreliable sources like press releases, Blogspot posts, Twitter tweets, Yahoo Answers posts and YouTube videos — and with all the references simply contextlessly piled at the bottom of the article without even the slightest attempt at footnoting what content is sourced to which reference, it's impossible to properly evaluate whether his claim of notability is actually properly supported by the relatively few genuinely reliable sources or not. And furthermore, there are serious overtones of self-promotional advertising here, which are not allayed by the fact that the article has been edited by User:Ravi5896 (and represent the only Wikipedia contribution that user has ever made), so there's a potential/probable WP:COI. There might be a genuine notability case here, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but this version of the article ain't it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with nominator. I have looked into some of the sources and started to try to clean up the article. However there is no indication of notability except for the climbing of Everest, and being the first civil servant in his department to do so. Which really, unfortunately is not that notable any more, unless it truly is a first, such as when the first blind man climbed it. So many people have now climbed Everest that a specific civil servant climbing it is not notable.VViking_TalkEdits 01:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the other editors who have posted here. I came across this article and noticed it needed manual of style cleanup, so going through the article and fixing the headers, and spacing, etc., I read through the text and while there might be some notability, I can't see how it would meet notability guidelines for an encyclopedia article. Yes, there are all kinds of references, but we don't know what in the text they are sourcing as they are all added in a general sense at the bottom, plus many of them are blogs and social networking sites which don't meet reliable source guidelines. Reading through the article, I get the sense that's it's more promotional than encyclopedic, and if we were to take out all the promo aspects, fluff and unreliable references, I don't think we would be left with much of an article. Cmr08 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment -Well, being not hatred of COI and AUTOBIO, -the article indeed in its present shape is very bad but that can be discussed on the respective talk page. Coming to the notability of subject, -they appear to be have received some kind of coverage in some reliable sources such as, -[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. -At one instance they appear to be someone notable for only one event (yes, BLP1E for climbing a mountain?), on other side they have won two Indian states highest sports award (Bihar Khel Ratna and Sikkim Khel Ratna award. sounds good?). I need sometime to (look for more sources and) make a !vote on here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep -Subject meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG for having significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources and having won two prestigious awards. If kept, please move it to Ravindra Kumar (IAS officer) leaving no redirect. (courtesy ping to Bearcat, VViking and Cmr08 to take a look at now-version of article.). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:27, 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, Stifle (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Relister's note: Whilst there is a reasonable consensus to delete above, I would be remiss to allow that outcome in the light of the substantial improvements to the article. Hoping the above editors will come back and reassess. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not shown by winning state awards and nothing else meets any notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What? Read WP:BIO and WP:GNG, then sources listed above in my comment. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I am new to the editing community and I am perplexed about the very low bar that seems to be used for WP:GNG. Someone is claiming that this individual is notable because he received some local coverage for completing what is now a common challenge. I do not live in India, but if the Indian press is anything like the Canadian press, this sort of feel-good, "local boy achieves" article shows up in something other than the "News" section of a publication. It does not mean the person is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Walkabout14 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment -I don't feel like answering each and everyone here. Needless to say but I would expect closing admin to weigh in policy-based arguments and disregard other !votes (and if possible take a look at article). Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Relisted 4 times? Really? The comments below requesting that the article be deleted are correct. We do not keep unsourced BLPs. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ilaria Latini

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

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

Strange article that is an effectively unsourced BLP and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (push) @ 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this page only became like this after 11 edits from User:31.52.242.199. I have reverted these edits, but retained the AfD notice. Please re-view the page, it should meet standards again. —Msmarmalade (talk) 05:03, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (visit) @ 13:01, 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, czar ⨹ 03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Msmarmalade: I'm a little unclear on why you believe that this article meets WP:GNG, given the lack of a single reliable source (at least, reliable in the sense our policies intend) in the article as you restored it, could you explain why you believe it does? --j⚛e decker^talk 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, Joe Decker: I mean in the sense that it was nominated for removal due to the edits that made it unreadable, and it is now only as bad as any other article at this level of notability, and just needs a bit of work. I believe a simple {{BLP unsourced}} tag would be more appropriate than deleting entirely.—Msmarmalade (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Gentry Miller

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

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [9] 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." The references for the subject include three local and state newspapers, a television station, plus two international newspapers. As Dravecky has done here, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these batched articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Airfox

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No special coverage; article depends on primary sources and forums, which are not held to be reliable sources. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything good. Ethically^Yours! 09:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator's reasoning.—Noah 04:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu
• Articles for deletion/Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu (3rd nomination)

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

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

Article fails WIKI guideline, reliable reference sources untraceable, subject was just a senior employee and he no longer work with the mentioned co emami too, the article was discussed earlier at AFD and wrongly misunderstood the subject as N. Venkat , Couple of people with the name N.Venkat are referred while ref search; one of them is also a management professor but not the same or relate to the subject mentioned in the article. One life to live (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (banter) @ 18:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -One life to live, Hi, how did you know he was 'just a senior employee' and now 'no longer works' with Emami Co.? If he is not "N. Venkat", who is he then? I've just finished off my basic online research on subject, and it appears to me that they really are "N. Venkat" and the former CEO of Emami Co. The article was created in 2008 by an editor as, "Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu is the Chief Executive Officer of Emami House[..]", and then we see contemporary reliable sources that say, "N. Venkat is the CEO of the Emami House". Doesn't it suggest they both are the same person with latter being short form of lengthy one? The only case may be here that Mr. N. Venkat's full name may not be "Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu". However, if we look at one self-published source, it confirms their name as "Venkateswarlu Nelabhotla". Creator wanted to create an article about CEO of Emami house, -and that was N. Venkat that time (primary source). Did I miss something?

With all these findings, the only valid question now survives in-here is that, is Mr. N. Venkat eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia? I think, yes, for they have been discussed in detail in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (WP:GNG?), such as The Hindu, Business-Standard, Business-Standard2, Financial Express, Economic Times, VCCircle, Moneycontrol^{may be unreliable!}, Businesstoday, Business-Standard, Deccan Herald, Daily Excelsior, etc. With all these coverage of subject in the Indian daily English newspapers, if there are even half of this coverage in Indian daily Hindi and other languages newspapers (doesn't sound plausible?), subject easily qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Again please let me know if I'm missing something. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Anupmehra (talk · contribs)Hi, I also got the similar search results and few more as mentioned earlier about N. Vekat (professor) . Firstly subject was a senior employee i.e.“CEO" with Emami, after that he moved to Birla wellness and now looks like he started his own co. Vyome Biosciences. This is what the multiple coverage (also shared by you above) provide the information about the subject. This made me question about the Notability of the subject. The point what I am trying to make is “Yes" he was a CEO of one company and now co founder CEO of his own company and we do have sufficient coverage for this but what significant work the subject has done making him notable enough ? Just being a CEO of a company is notable enough ? I could not trace any coverage to answer this concern, hence requested this discussion.One life to live (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

India is home to at least 1.22 bn people, therefore it is very likely that a name would be shared between many people. Not only in here but in many fairly smaller countries too, a name is shared between many. So, there may be many "N. Venkat" around. It is not a problem however, if professor N. Venkat turns out to be notable for inclusion, we'll create them an article titled "N. Venkat (professor)".

We do not really look for what a person has done or accomplished in their field, but just were they written about in detail in multiple reliable sources independent of them?, that's just it. We assume that they must have done something notable that brought them coverage in many mainstream reliable sources independent of them. I find it irony in terms of TV actors, what the hell impact they have made on society and civilization that they are on Wikipedia. But, you know, coverage, -that's just what Wikipedia looks for and it further discourages editors doing their own research. If it answers your question, you may withdraw your nomination or wait for other editors comment (I'm suggesting withdraw just to save the community time). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Anupmehra (talk · contribs) Plz don’t get confused with the professor N Venkat it was referred in context to the first nomination in which subject N Venkat was referred as management guru and concluded to keep the article. To save on that I made a note that other N Venkat are also present which should not be misunderstood to the subject under this discussion. I have a different view point with ref to your comment on TV actor I think they are part of wiki cos they are notable because of individual accomplishments and mentioned information is supported by reliable sources. I don’t think just any TV actor is part of wiki without meeting the guidelines. Coming to the initial discussion you have not answered how the subject is notable ? or is it the company Emami / Vyome Biosciences ? in any case I could not find any mention which makes the subject or the referred company adding to the notability of subject. The intention is not to waste community time but to make wikipedia better I am sure that’s what we all want isn’t it ?One life to live (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait! I didn't answer the basic question, how subject qualifies for inclusion.. Again, they merit a Wikipedia article because they have been published in multiple WP:SECONDARY, independent and reliable sources and thus meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG -notability guidelines (please see sources provide above or in the article for the coverage). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:27, 19 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 04:21, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

1986 Virginia Slims Championships

1986 Virginia Slims Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disambution page (March and November), already have that two articles. 333-blue 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (speak) @ 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 13:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Turn into a disambiguation page rather than having a combined article for both tournaments. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:07, 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 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, copyvio content redacted. Nakon 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Trac: Music Traditions Wales

Trac: Music Traditions Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of the article seems to be of unclear notability, and the article is very poorly referenced. The article has also been edited by 81.96.202.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who may be associated with the subject given the use of "our" in this diff which substantially expanded the article. Finally, most of the rest of the article appears to be copied and pasted from the organization's website. V2Blast (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (shout) @ 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 18:24, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 13:01, 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, czar ⨹ 03:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Described by "the official gateway to Wales" and BBC Wales as "Wales's Folk Development organisation", so claim to notability. I believe a more satisfactory article could be produced based on independent sources such as National Lottery Good Causes, Ty Cerdd (Music Centre of Wales), and Arts Council of Wales: Noyster (talk), 13:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Nakon 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Locs Sunglasses

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

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

Contested prod. Original reasoning was: Page is entirely original research. A search for sources also fails to demonstrate the notability of this style of sunglasses. Deadbeef 00:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with this proposed deletion the style of locs sunglasses has been cited multiple times below in the refeerence links describing 1) hip hop fashion. and as well as its inclusion in actual hip hop songs referring to the actual style. In addition to a image displaying locs sunglasses being worn by a subject ( easy E ) mentioned in the song and a caption describing the style of sunglasses. In my personal experience and my understanding of urban pop culture musical and fashion trends just as stated in the article these are a staple of the hip hop more urban community. And I would say it seems as a slippery slope that there may be a bias against this article based on that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpetetat2me (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (vent) @ 13:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:ADMASQ. Pax 01:03, 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, only (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per Раціональне анархіст. This is an advertisement masquerading as an article or at least the improper use of Wikipedia as a soapbox to proclaim how great this item is. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There was no express support shown for the nominator's merging suggestion, which can still be considered through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd Milestone

2nd Milestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable 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)

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appledene
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballacrye Corner
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkin's Bend
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gooseneck, Isle of Man
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School House Corner
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signpost Corner
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/26th Milestone

--doncram 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

• AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
• deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
• RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --doncram 20:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Appledene

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

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

Non-notable 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)

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appledene
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballacrye Corner
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkin's Bend
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gooseneck, Isle of Man
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School House Corner
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signpost Corner
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/26th Milestone

--doncram 20:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

• AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
• deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
• RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --doncram 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Missi Hale

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

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

A singer whose only credit is to Monster High-either redirect to that or delete. Wgolf (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to have a decent list of credits, but I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time.  Gongshow   talk 00:36, 5 February 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 decker^talk 05:22, 9 February 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) 05:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was unable to find any sources that would support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Delemar

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

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

this person is non-notable. just a resume. use LinkedIn instead. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per simply being TOO SOON for this young filmmaker. Let him make more films and get some actual press and this can be WP:REFUNDED. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:25, 1 February 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 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: agree with the too soon sentiment. The references on Mr Delemar's article establish that he played some football and has created a press release for a short film released last year. The clothing line and film by the same name do not yet exist and there appears to be no press coverage. —Noah 04:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaveh ebrahimpour

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N. Creator of one film, which won recognition at one festival. I find no substantial coverage of the director himself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 February 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 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete winning a student film prize does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

DaviX

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

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. References are a tutorial and an arXiv preprint, both from the authors of the software. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Four new sources from scientific reviewed paper have been added and three from blogs and online sources. These can be considered as reliable published sources. Firwen. Do you still consider WP:NSOFT as not respected ? (hm?) 22:03, 1 February 2015.

• None of these papers have received any citations, except one, and they all come from the same group, so they don't count as independent in my book. The only paper that has received a handful of citations is the Dynamic federations one, which devotes only a tiny paragraph to DaviX. Looks like it's WP:TOOSOON for this software. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is this serious ? This software is quoted in at least 4 papers, references in 5-6 independant websites and is used in at least 3 different frameworks / softwares ? Do you need to have a 10 papers in Nature or ACM to be in wikipedia  ? This software is used by WLCG and the High energy physics community, deployed at more than 120 sites / physics institutions... And it is a free software developped by a public institution: nothing commerical.... How is this not enough ? Firwen.

• You need significant coverage in the independent sources, not passing mention: benchmarks, analyses, critiques rather than "we used software X [courtesy citation]". Citation counts can be used as a proxy for such coverage (some citing papers will contain the coverage required), and the threshold is typically put at a few hundred or more. Re: independent websites, self-published sources like GitHub repos, StackOverflow posts etc. don't count; anyone can put software up there. Inclusion in Ubuntu isn't significant coverage, nor is use. There are myriad Linux device drivers that are deployed on millions of computers worldwide but don't warrant separate articles because nothing interesting is written about them. Commercial or free plays no role. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ok I see your concerns. About "Benchmark, analyses, critiques", the paper "https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-13021-7_15" covers these topics with benchmarks and analyse of the performance of Davix versus an HTC solution", this paper has been peer reviewed and presented at the VLDB conference. DaviX is used by three independant scientific experiments ATLAS experiment, Compact Muon Solenoid and LHCb and consequently installed by more than > 120 of their cooperative physics laboratories worldwide. It has been distributed and packaged on 5 majors plateforms by official distributions channels (Official repositories) by different individuals: Debian, Fedora, Red Hat, Ubuntu and brew (OSX). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firwen (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• More external references have been added from the EGI project, the GRIDPP team, the HEP software foundation and the DMC CERN team.

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) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• One more reference about daviX usage and softwares used at CERN added ( quora ). Firwen( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Uma Kumaran

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable Haminoon (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Kumaran is clearly a notable person in the Sri Lankan community in the UK.Rathfelder (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Because the only reference I've seen (this one) suggests otherwise. Haminoon (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The ILG are clearly her opponents. Their blog is not a terribly independent source. But she has appeared in the Tamil Guardian and the Columbo Telegraph. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The fact that she could become the first Tamil MP in the UK seems quite significant. The policy does not suggest that candidates should be excluded from the encyclopedia because they are candidates. Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I gathered the ILG opposed her. The problem is we don't have evidence of the reverse. I don't see how the articles referenced from the Tamil Guardian and the Colombo Telegraph can be considered "significant coverage" - one is announcing her candidacy and appears to be a re-published press release; the other says nothing but she turned up to an event along with some other people. Being the first Tamil MP in the UK would be significant, but we don't even have a reliable reference to say she is likely to win. I doubt she is the first Tamil to stand for the UK parliament. As for your last sentence; its true but beside the point. Haminoon (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I've discussed this and related cases with Rathfelder before: see User_talk:Rathfelder#Notability_of_Labour_Party_candidates for details. Kumaran's main claim to fame is as an election candidate, but merely being a candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the citations given in the article are to local newspapers describing that candidacy or related activities. Other citations feature only passing mentions of Kumaran and do not satisfy general notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 12:49, 1 February 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 decker^talk 05:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Harrow East (UK Parliament constituency) if consensus determines she does not meet GNG. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Numerous references where this person is the subject of the article, suggesting she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage presented in the article is very week. We either have local media reporting trivia - like she was campaining against independence of Scotland - dozens thousands of people campaigned, and this does not make them notable. Or we have Daily Mail reporting that her photo was shown on a TV show - this is WP:ONEEVENT.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sharon Maas

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

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

No indication of notability. Was once a journalist for a Guyanese newspaper and has written four books for which the notability is not asserted. No awards listed, etc. The only references are to her own web page and to "www.themisathena.info". Fails WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:28, 19 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 _S  14:53, 19 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 _S  14:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:47, 19 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 01:23, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep To avoid cultural bias, we rightly accord some degree of tolerance to relatively poorly sourced articles dealing with areas were our usual sources are scarce and information harder to document. Tho this is not unlimited, the present career would seem to fall into what would be notability anywhere. The authorship of books that have been translated into multiple other languages is characteristic of a notable author. According to Worldcat, her most widely held book is is 214 libraries [10], and she has 2 others in more than 100.This is very respectable for an author fro this area,considering almost all Worldcat libaries are in the Angloamerican culture area. I think she does intact meet NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nitai Pons Pérez

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

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines pertinent to a musician under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NMUSIC. Only 88 Google hits for "Nitai Pons", generally from social media and coverage of local events, no substantive coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:45, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Treet.Tv

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

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable company, fails GNG Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:22, 25 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 _S  15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:55, 2 February 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) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lee Shi-ah

Lee Shi-ah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This appears to be a backdoor attempt to recreate a deleted article for non-notable kpop group, Chi Chi, by instead creating it for one of its former members. Half the article is about Chi Chi, and the other half is about the member's minor drama role, music video role, and larger role in a drama that began airing two days ago. The TV shows she's mentioned being on (as a member of Chi Chi) are all non-notable. This is WP:TOO SOON. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 2 February 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) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Person is not yet notable, and most acting roles were minor. --Random86 (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dairese Gary

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:NHOOPS John from Idegon (talk) 06:34, 25 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 _S  07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:28, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 2 February 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) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete plaing in a development league rarely makes one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Aquarius tour

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

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

This article basically contains a setlist and list of dates for a tour that is currently in progress. The artist, Tinashe, does not appear notable enough that her fist tour will pass the notability criteria in WP:NTOUR. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough coverage to pass WP:NTOUR. Also since many of the dates are in the future there are issues with advertising. JBH (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 2 February 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 03:20, 9 February 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) 05:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NTOUR: "Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." That appears to be the case here, as the only coverage I could find in reliable sources merely announce that the tour is happening [11][12][13][14]. Perhaps some info from those write-ups could be incorporated into the associated album's page.  Gongshow   talk 15:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NTOUR as above. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sobuj Barta (Children News Portal)

Sobuj Barta (Children News Portal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable, there is not anything about it besides its website online Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable web content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Unable to find reliable secondary sources which would establish the notability of this web site under GNG. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Compound

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

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

This article can be described as informative and interesting. But its also completely non-notable, and doesn't even contain a single reputable reliable source. In fact, reputable sources or not, there's not even any sources listed period. Filopiq (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Here are a few starter sources about this large abandoned neighborhood: [15][16][17] So far I'm not seeing a strong case for a separate article, but sources like these could be used to improve the existing mention of this at Palm Bay, Florida. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:26, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 2 February 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) 10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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