User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:13, 15 February 2015

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 12:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Journal of Biomedical Semantics (2nd nomination)	9 years ago	2	4006	0	2373.24
SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek	9 years ago	2	6414	0	1132.6
First-level NUTS of Turkey	9 years ago	1	4413	2	627.86
ASTR (band)	9 years ago	1	4453	2	627.72
Khan Wars	9 years ago	0	1758	1	550.64
Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)	9 years ago	2	3836	2	527.84
Kyon	9 years ago	3	4757	0	503.93
List of programs broadcast by STAR One	9 years ago	4	7377	2	478.86
James Golick	9 years ago	2	7470	3	447.21
Brighton Women's Centre	9 years ago	4	6609	3	414.34
Ron Wear	9 years ago	3	9955	3	401.16
Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year	9 years ago	4	5264	1	383.94
BlueMarine	9 years ago	0	1558	0	374.65
Allan Barty	9 years ago	0	1437	0	369.91
Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia	9 years ago	1	2650	0	369.59
Nixie Pixel	9 years ago	0	2455	0	362.45
Treet.Tv	9 years ago	0	2952	2	362.12
The Compound	9 years ago	0	3055	2	362
Vasile Adam	9 years ago	0	3557	2	361.98
Francis Tan Huan Chun	9 years ago	0	4277	2	361.37
DaviX	9 years ago	0	4874	1	356.34
Ozone (festival)	9 years ago	0	1824	0	355.95
The CD Singles '91–95'	9 years ago	0	1483	0	354.99
Christopher Wehkamp	9 years ago	0	2571	1	346.26
Leviathan (song)	9 years ago	0	1952	1	343.45

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) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Biomedical Semantics

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

Article has been tagged as maybe not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline since January 2013. Nothing has been done since then to establish notaibility. Two years seems long enough to allow it to happen if it's possible. Ankababel (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Page wasn't properly templated or listed on a daily log. Now listed for the first time at today's log page. I have no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 15:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep Per first AfD (indexed in Scopus, meets WP:NJournals). No idea why the notability tag was not removed after that (was clear keep). --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Since the previous AFD, the journal is now also indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded (and, less importantly, BIOSIS Previews). --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep. It seems to have an impact factor so i guess we have to keep it under WP:NJournals. BakerStMD T|C 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment At this point it does not yet have an IF. However, it is included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and will get a 2014 IF (to be published this summer). --Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep – Per criteria #1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT. Indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 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

(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 redirect to NUTS of Turkey. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

First-level NUTS of Turkey

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

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

I think those pages are redundant to the NUTS of Turkey page. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Similar articles for NUTS of Germany or NUTS of France use country-specific names instead of generic ones:

States of Germany and Regierungsbezirk instead of First-level NUTS of Germany and Second-level NUTS of Germany.
Zone d'études et d'aménagement du territoire and Regions of France instead of First-level NUTS of France and Second-level NUTS of France.

For Turkey though, I'm not sure there is an equivalent. The regions and subregions listed at Geographical regions of Turkey is is not the same as First-level NUTS of Turkey and Second-level NUTS of Turkey. Administrative divisions of Turkey does follow the same boundaries, but it looks like the first division of land is Provinces of Turkey, which are the same as Third-level NUTS of Turkey. Are there any Turkish names for First-level NUTS of Turkey and/or Second-level NUTS of Turkey? Forbes72 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Apart from Regions of Turkey and Subregions of Turkey, which were most probably defined at the same time as their synonyms, I don't think there is. --Mttll (talk) 13:01, 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 (talk) @ 20:11, 28 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) 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge to NUTS of Turkey. That is the same material. The other candidate countries (which are smaller I admit) don't have it split up into multiple articles. Also, the main NUTS page already goes 3 levels and a separate article on the third-level NUTS would be overkill. Do it as categories within Category:Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics as the other countries do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Redirect to NUTS of Turkey, which contains the whole of the content of this article, and has now been tabulated for clearer visibility: Noyster (talk), 14:41, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ASTR (band)

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

non notable WP:MUSIC Deunanknute (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

notable musician and artist. This band is signed to 300 Entertainment, distributed by ADA, booked on all major US festivals, and has music on iTunes WP:MUSIC User: Josh300 (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2015 (EST)

I was unable to find non-trivial published works, charting, awards, or anything else that would indicate notability. If any of that exists, please show reference. Deunanknute (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:57, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (visit) @ 20:15, 28 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) 01:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 5 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Khan Wars

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

non-notable, current ref's appear to be promotional Deunanknute (talk) 12:23, 30 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) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only meaningful (non-press release) hit in a video game reliable sources search was http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/06/14/joymax-expands-into-browser-based-gaming-with-khan-wars. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 04:14, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)

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

Defunct fashion label was the subject of one RS article but cannot find anything after that, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (post) @ 20:10, 28 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) 01:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

delete per WP:GNG unable to find anything beyond passing mentions Deunanknute (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
delete as above. Neutrality^talk 06:30, 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 redirect. —Cryptic 05:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kyon

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

The only source in the article is an interview with the book's author, which is an invalid primary source. I couldn't find reliable sources to get this article past any of our notability guidelines. The article lacks a "reception" section, so it doesn't even explain why it's notable in the real world. Delete or merge to a list. Antigng (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment I find it a bit odd and surprising that a user with no previous edit history has managed to get the AfD process down and nominate this article for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Reply I used to edit through my ip address, such as Special:Contributions/180.172.239.231, Special:Contributions/114.81.255.37, Special:Contributions/114.81.255.40, Special:Contributions/218.81.14.78.--Antigng (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  - @Antigng: Well im glad you made an account then, and welcome to Wikipedia. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes me wonder why he didn't do so earlier, given how active he has been on AfDs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters, I have been unable to find anything useful and seeing that it is all un-sourced information in the article for the most part, I feel the character summary on the characters list article is adequate. I would however, oppose the deletion of Haruhi or Yuki for the time being as they are better sourced and have more potential. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment I'm witholding !voting for now, but could someone check Japanese sources, interviews, and the like? It's entirely possible that there could be coverage out there, particularly in Japanese. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick look but didn't see anything at first glance. If you can find some reviews of the series and they mention Kyon and what is unique about this character ect... that counts as outside third party reliable feedback. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters. As much as I feel he 'deserves' one, the evidence just doesn't support him having his own article. He doesn't even have his own article in the Japanese Wikipedia, where he is presumably more notable. Bensci54 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
redirect I deliberately waited to see what happened as it struck me that this could be notable, however notability is decided by sources and reception and we don't have any here. Perhaps one for the future burn at the moment this page does not satisfy the criteria based on its current state. SephyTheThird (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Antigng (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect: This page since it has had no significant edits in a few years which leaves me to believe that no one is interested in working on it, leaving it to suffer from its entirety being plot summary with only one reference. Be it notable or not, for this reason I'd have to say redirect to the parent list. —KirtZ^Message 20:27, 21 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, Antigng (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

comment I don't understand why this has been extended again when there is a clear consensus to redirect (which essentially is the same as merge). Surely this is a clear case of snow?SephyTheThird (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@SephyTheThird: I found out the issue, this has been relisted twice by a non admin. On top of that being relisted by the person nominating this for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters. It's not clear that this character has sufficient independent notability (or sourcing) to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was merge to STAR One. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by STAR One

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

I will believe that the former TV-station is notable, but to my opinion a list of programs broadcasted by a no longer existing TV-station is not notable. Side note: completely unsourced The Banner talk 12:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep, this lists notable programming that was original to this notable channel and so is a standard list in this subject area and an index of articles by a significant shared feature per WP:LISTPURP. I can't see how it's relevant that it no longer operates. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- It would have a purpose when the TV-station was still there. Now it is just an indiscriminate list hanging in the air. The Banner talk 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  - Are you're saying that you can't see a purpose to having articles about subjects that no longer exist? Is that really your argument? postdlf (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    - No, I think that indiscriminate, unsourced lists of programs transmitted by any station are already non-notable. Unfortunately, I have consensus against me. But here we have the situation of an indiscriminate, unsourced lists of programs transmitted by a station that no longer exists, leaving the list in fact without parent. So I have asked the community to voice their opinion. The Banner talk 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      - The parent article is STAR One and continues to exist even though the subject no longer operates. The fact that these notable television series were original content broadcast by that channel continues to be a significant and defining fact about those series (just as with List of programs broadcast by the DuMont Television Network) and one that we also categorize. "Unsourced" is still not a deletion argument. And I do not think "indiscriminate" means what you think it means (whatever it is you think it means here). postdlf (talk) 16:02, 28 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) 00:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Selective Merge - Most tv programmes get merged in to the tv article - I personally see no harm in merging the notable ones & getting rid of the rest (IE redlinked ones). –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's of course fine by me, so long as the information is preserved. Whether there are enough notable programs to merit a standalone list per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT is a question of editorial judgment. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 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 01:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Selective merge like Davey2010 said. TV station article would be too long if we put the whole list into it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:16, 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 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

James Golick

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

I don't believe that this person has lasting notability. Everything in this article has to do with him doing his job Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete – It seems that he was a fine person and not unknown in the open source community, but WP:ANYBIO needs a "widely recognized contribution". Unfortunately I don't think contributions like the Ruby on Rails libraries were covered widely enough to qualify under that. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Lots of podcasts call themselves "Real Talk". For example here we have "Todd & Larry, 2 west coast dudes", and "Adam & Koko/Rambling with Ryan", etc. Pax 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment—I'm seeing a large number of ghits across a pretty wide spectrum of topics. I can't point to any subset that would definitely establish notability, but I think someone who is more connected with the rails community might be able to make a good case here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:33, 8 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment—James made contributions the MRI (the main ruby virtual machine) ^[1], additionally he made contributions to Google's tcmalloc a rather notable project. He gave many talks around the world on a variety of topics in computer science and engineering ^[2]. And finally he was an advocate for Women working in open source - devoting time to mentoring women entering the generally male dominated world of open source. All of these I believe point to him being widely recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephGaudet (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Delete - The only reliable source I see is his obituary. ~KvnG 21:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment/Links
- Hacker News
- Medium (written by Founder/CEO of Quirky and one of Forbes "America's Most Promising CEOs Under 35")
- Reddit ("Rubyist and mod of this sub")
- "The James Golick Grant for Women in Computology" (referenced from this blog, which also has several other links to obituaries/tributes. However, the grant was actually started by his family, so not in itself contributing to notability or independent sourcing)
- AlleyWatch (was to present at "New York Tech Meetup")
- The Province obituary (previously mentioned)

50.153.132.140 (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RELIABLE and let me know which of these you believe qualify. ~KvnG 14:58, 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, slakr^\ talk / 04:31, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 6 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, MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 16 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. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Brighton Women's Centre

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing to differentiate this women's organization from many others like it throughout the UK and the world. Citations refer to coverage from primary sources and local media only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Google News link above turned up a few hits in The Independent. AadaamS (talk) 17:48, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom - No different from any other small charity in the UK. –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep – Has been covered twice recently by the Independent [1] [2] in relation to an important national issue (sentencing reform), and there are several in-depth profiles on Google [3] [4]. Meets GNG. (BTW, don't go to the home page of the thewomensresourcecentre -- it has been hacked by Islamic extremists. Or do go, if you are interested in that sort of thing. I had never seen it before.) – Margin1522 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment – without committing to deletion, keeping or another outcome. I checked through various published (offline) sources I have about Brighton, and found no mention in any. In particular, I would have expected at least a passing reference in The New Encyclopaedia of Brighton (Rose Collis, 2010). That said, there may well be other books in the libraries down here which do mention the Centre. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete most references are not independent. --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:10, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep – Has been cited as national best practice e.g. New Economics Foundation [5] and as reported in the Independent. It is arguably at least of regional significance as they operate across Sussex. (disclaimer: I did create the page) Mdnl55 (talk) 09:58, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ron Wear

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am submitting this article for deletion. As far as I can tell, this does not meet any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability - specifically, WP:ANYBIO which states:

Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

Since no other Mr. World Canada has a Wikipedia article, there is nothing noteworthy about Ron Wear that makes an article on him worthy for inclusion. His passing relationship with Tara Teng seems to be the only reason an article was created for him in the first place, as the only page linking to him is the page for Tara Teng. However, to quote again from WP:BIO, Ron Wear's vague association with Ms. Teng does not confer notability onto him.

That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles.

The sources cited to form the bulk of this article are superfluous at best. For example, footnote [9], which states that Ron Wear is an active swimmer and yoga practitioner. Not only is this information irrelevant (under the guidelines at WP:NOTE), but it fails to meet the criteria on diversity of sources. The article reads, in its current form, as a promotional biography of a former beauty pageant winner who has accomplished nothing to make him worthy of a Wikipedia entry.

69.158.90.116 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete The fact that Ron Wear is apparently the only winner from this particular pageant with his own Wikipedia page tells me that simply being a pageant winner does not create notability, as if it did there would likely be other similar pages. Further, the article does not provide any evidence for Mr. Wear's distinctiveness from other winners of the same pageant, as it mostly discusses events he participated in after winning and it is incredibly likely that none of these events are out of the ordinary for such a winner or have any kind of historical merit that require documentation. Finally, as noted in the original move for deletion, the majority of the article is dedicated to documenting Wear's professional relationship with another pageant winner. This also tells me that Mr. Wear does not have significant notability as if he did his article would not have to be padded with irrelevant information about the fact that he once met another pageant winner, especially as any rational person would be able to assume that he has likely met other pageant winners and this does not need to be documented. Essentially the page reads like it was either a.) written by Mr. Wear's publicist or b.) Written by Ms. Teng's publicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 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, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Keep, winner of major competition, Mr. World Canada 2010. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No opinion regarding the status of the article at this time, but Mr. World Canada is not the highest tier of that particular competition: it is the Canadian qualifiers for Mister World. I am dubious that the national title is sufficient in and of itself to confer notability (and have not evaluated the subject to determine if notability has been otherwise demonstrated). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Admin--please don't decide on this until CU etc. have run their course at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 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, slakr^\ talk / 04:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. From the newspaper articles cited there appears to be significant coverage of this individual in ten secondary sources. If in the future a "List of Mr. World Canada winners" is written, and if this individual has not by then achieved notability for other events, then there is a potential to redirect this article to there, but for the time being at least I think there is enough independent coverage to justify maintaining the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:28, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 6 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, MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Mr. World Canada, which already has some of the same content. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, I don't think it matters so much that no other winner has an article. That could just be because no one has gotten around to creating one. But winning Mr. World Canada doesn't seem to have generated that much coverage. Most of the sources in the article are fairly trivial one-line mentions. The best ones were from his agency and the TV station where he hosted a show, but those aren't independent. And I couldn't find any other good ones. I think his best shot at notability would be getting some significant acting roles. If that happens, this article could be revived. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep - the sourcing in the article appear to be sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep as coverage in reliable third-party sources appears to push this subject across the verifiability and notability thresholds of WP:GNG. That this is the first Wikipedia article about a winner of this competition is not relevant as somebody has to be first. (Notability is not inherited but nor is it dependent on the existence of similar articles.) - Dravecky (talk) 09:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year

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

Award fails WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. This is a non-notable academic award in a college sports context. I, for one, do not want to minimize the importance of academic excellence among college student-athletes, but this award clearly fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources), as required for inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The proper way to handle this is to include mention of the award in the bio articles for each of its notable recipients, for whom the award does represent a significant honor and accomplishment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Dirtlawyer1. It's a nice honor but not one that gets much independent coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The award is definitely not the most popular award, but it does get independent coverage. Every newspaper that reports SEC Player of the year or Coach of the year is also reporting scholar-athlete of the year. It is one of the 5 awards that come out each year, just some examples over the years such as the Washington Times^[1],WCBI^[2], or The Courier Journal ^[3]. Also there are multiple page with a similar format for other categories such as List of CCHA Scholar-Athlete of the Year, List of ECAC Hockey Student-Athlete of the Year, etc. Blairjs (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blairjs, one-sentence mentions (or less), as listed by you, do not constitute significant coverage sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:57, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Not a notable honor... and i'd also support deleting the two non notable hockey award pages linked to above. Spanneraol (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete No independent coverage to meet GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:10, 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. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

BlueMarine

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

Non-notable software. Did a quick search and couldn't find any third-party, reliable coverage of it. Just seems like an open source project that has since been abandoned. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Quick searches won't turn up results for software that hasn't been developed in almost ten years. You have to dig deeper to find relevant info, e.g. here. Samsara 00:25, 16 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! 10:13, 16 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! 01:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete: Aside from the informative article by the software's author in the NetBeans Community Magazine [6] and the usual download site link, searches are not turning up anything to indicate that this ever became notable. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete The only thing that brought this closer to me to GNG beyond what has been noted before is [7], but I doubt we'd actually include pull quotes from the views on the software given there. I don't think we really have met GNG here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:43, 24 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 00:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Allan Barty

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Created by WP:SPA User:Slbarty, suggesting WP:COI. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 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! 11:24, 16 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! 01:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Definitely a conflict of interest. The article almost meets the guidelines set out by WP:BLPPROD, as it is almost completely unsourced, with the exception of a non-notable blogspot blog. BenLinus 1214^talk 03:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete per above. Googled him. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete - WP:MUSICBIO not satisfied, in my opinion. Neither is WP:GNG. I see alot of links to websites like Discogs and AllMusic, but little sources to satisfy the reliable sources guideline. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 2 March 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 ALL, Nakon 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia

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

Part of a sprawling series of non resident ambassador. Already several have been deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Belarus.

Also nominating:

Delete All: All of these articles fail WP:GNG, specifically, the single source given on these pages ([8]) does not establish notability and I was unable to find better sources. Shanata (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 8 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 17:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete all per previous discussions. There is nothing notable about non-resident ambassadors. Tavix | Talk 23:08, 16 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) 02:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nixie Pixel

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

After searching, I cannot find a reliable source that covers Nixie in depth at all. As it stands right now, this article fails Notability for web content. w^L^{<speak·check>} 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do the refs I did add help on that matter ? Yamitatsu (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those refs count as reliable sources, which are needed when it comes to living people. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 22:09, 16 February 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) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:49, 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. Fails WP:N. Only notable website that she is supposedly a regular columnist is The Escapist, but according to her profile there she hasn't been active there since December 2013. The tone and style of the article (as it is now, going to edit for just those reasons) seems like WP:PROMOTION to me. --Soetermans. T / C 17:23, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Treet.Tv

(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. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Compound

(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. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Here are a few starter sources about this large abandoned neighborhood: [9][10][11] 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.

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:NOQUORUM. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Vasile Adam

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

While I admire what this fellow does, it seems to me he doesn't remotely approach the notability criteria spelled out at WP:ARTIST. The sources just aren't there to back up a claim of encyclopedic merit: a puff piece in a no-name paper, and another puff piece penned by "Andrian Adam, intern at Timpul" - not coincidentally, the author of the article now up for deletion is one Andrian Adam. And the subject of said article is Vasile Adam. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 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) 10:53, 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)

Francis Tan Huan Chun

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

Non Notable person, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All references in article are listings or social media type listings, not reliable. Cannot find any further sources which meet WP:RS. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This person works in the music education industry and thus has sources primarily from educational institutions. Although this person may not be extremely notable, he is notable enough to have his own article.Pichu9x (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Educational institutions are generally, in most cases, not reliable sources. If you can find more reliable sources that show this person is notable for his own article, then the article can stay, but until then, I support deletion. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 16:10, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 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) 11:00, 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 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

DaviX

(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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ozone (festival)

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

Delete: Note notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 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! 10:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I generally wouldn't consider college music events notable, and this one doesn't demonstrate any notability outside of the college simply hosting it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:45, 16 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! 01:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability. WP can't have an article on everything that happens.Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete Event not notable. All college festivals and events are not warranted as an article unless they show strong signs of notability.Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I can't seen to determine an assertion of notability in the context of WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 2 March 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. Twice relisted and not a single vote. Per WP:RELIST, I'm going to close this as "no consensus". (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The CD Singles '91–95'

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

There are only really a few mentions of this release in books, mostly Morrissey books, and on its own I don't think this makes for a very good or expansive subject of an individual Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:24, 16 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! 01:35, 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 21:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Wehkamp

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

BLP. No sources provided, content does not rise to a significant notability level. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. This page now references sources. Thus deletion is a moot point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiskerchamp (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 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) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This page now references sources. Thus deletion is a moot point.Whiskerchamp (talk) 03:00, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the continued lack of any thorough discussion signal a lack of support for deletion? This article shouldn't be considered for deletion after sources were provided 15 days ago.Whiskerchamp (talk) 04:55, 18 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 redirect to Help!: A Day in the Life. (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Leviathan (song)

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

This does not appear to be notable enough to be deserving of its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 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 17:00, 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! 18:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Help!: A Day in the Life, the album on which the song was released. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't even find enough coverage to justify a merge and redirect. But WP:NSONG says: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. so redirect (forget merge) to Help!: A Day in the Life. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:54, 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.

[1] ttp://jamesgolick.com/2013/4/14/mris-method-caches.html

[2] ttp://jamesgolick.com/talks.html

[3] ttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/27/sec-baseball-awards-go-to-reed-nola-osullivan/

[4] ttp://www.wcbi.com/wordpress/2013-all-sec-baseball-teams-announced

[5] ttp://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2014/05/27/sec-baseball-conference-teams-awards/9655029/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|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 [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 07:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|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 [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 12:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Journal of Biomedical Semantics |Journal of Biomedical Semantics (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20150117002341}}||2||4006||0||'''2359.26'''
+|[[#Journal of Biomedical Semantics |Journal of Biomedical Semantics (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20150117002341}}||2||4006||0||'''2373.24'''
 |-
-|[[#SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek|SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek]]||{{Time ago|20150202231917}}||2||6414||0||'''1118.62'''
+|[[#SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek|SE Tacoma/Johnson Creek]]||{{Time ago|20150202231917}}||2||6414||0||'''1132.6'''
 |-
-|[[#First-level NUTS of Turkey|First-level NUTS of Turkey]]||{{Time ago|20150212013000}}||1||4413||2||'''613.88'''
+|[[#First-level NUTS of Turkey|First-level NUTS of Turkey]]||{{Time ago|20150212013000}}||1||4413||2||'''627.86'''
 |-
-|[[#ASTR (band)|ASTR (band)]]||{{Time ago|20150212013100}}||1||4453||2||'''613.74'''
+|[[#ASTR (band)|ASTR (band)]]||{{Time ago|20150212013100}}||1||4453||2||'''627.72'''
 |-
-|[[#Khan Wars|Khan Wars]]||{{Time ago|20150213195600}}||0||1758||1||'''536.66'''
+|[[#Khan Wars|Khan Wars]]||{{Time ago|20150213195600}}||0||1758||1||'''550.64'''
 |-
-|[[#Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)|Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)]]||{{Time ago|20150212013000}}||2||3836||2||'''513.86'''
+|[[#Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)|Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)]]||{{Time ago|20150212013000}}||2||3836||2||'''527.84'''
 |-
-|[[#Kyon|Kyon]]||{{Time ago|20150211065015}}||3||4757||0||'''489.95'''
+|[[#Kyon|Kyon]]||{{Time ago|20150211065015}}||3||4757||0||'''503.93'''
 |-
-|[[#Ukrainskiye Otruba|Ukrainskiye Otruba]]||{{Time ago|20150212054300}}||2||7330||2||'''481.49'''
+|[[#List of programs broadcast by STAR One|List of programs broadcast by STAR One]]||{{Time ago|20150211015200}}||4||7377||2||'''478.86'''
 |-
-|[[#Sunico Films|Sunico Films]]||{{Time ago|20150212130400}}||2||4435||2||'''479.41'''
+|[[#James Golick|James Golick]]||{{Time ago|20150213024400}}||2||7470||3||'''447.21'''
 |-
-|[[#Futura (clothing)|Futura (clothing)]]||{{Time ago|20150212130600}}||2||3679||2||'''479.09'''
+|[[#Brighton Women's Centre|Brighton Women's Centre]]||{{Time ago|20150212041900}}||4||6609||3||'''414.34'''
 |-
-|[[#List of programs broadcast by STAR One|List of programs broadcast by STAR One]]||{{Time ago|20150211015200}}||4||7377||2||'''464.88'''
+|[[#Ron Wear|Ron Wear]]||{{Time ago|20150213012800}}||3||9955||3||'''401.16'''
 |-
-|[[#Maria Luisa Ugolini Bonta|Maria Luisa Ugolini Bonta]]||{{Time ago|20150212054400}}||3||4411||2||'''451.3'''
+|[[#Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year|Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year]]||{{Time ago|20150212043300}}||4||5264||1||'''383.94'''
 |-
-|[[#Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber|Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber]]||{{Time ago|20150212054400}}||3||4514||2||'''451.16'''
+|[[#BlueMarine|BlueMarine]]||{{Time ago|20150216013243}}||0||1558||0||'''374.65'''
 |-
-|[[#Legacy (Nicky Romero song)|Legacy (Nicky Romero song)]]||{{Time ago|20150212215700}}||2||5291||3||'''447.62'''
+|[[#Allan Barty|Allan Barty]]||{{Time ago|20150216030649}}||0||1437||0||'''369.91'''
 |-
-|[[#James Golick|James Golick]]||{{Time ago|20150213024400}}||2||7470||3||'''433.24'''
+|[[#Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia|Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia]]||{{Time ago|20150215053313}}||1||2650||0||'''369.59'''
 |-
-|[[#Mohan Rathore|Mohan Rathore]]||{{Time ago|20150212070612}}||3||3382||0||'''417.2'''
+|[[#Nixie Pixel|Nixie Pixel]]||{{Time ago|20150216004116}}||0||2455||0||'''362.45'''
 |-
-|[[#Brighton Women's Centre|Brighton Women's Centre]]||{{Time ago|20150212041900}}||4||6609||3||'''400.36'''
+|[[#Treet.Tv|Treet.Tv]]||{{Time ago|20150216105000}}||0||2952||2||'''362.12'''
 |-
-|[[#Ron Wear|Ron Wear]]||{{Time ago|20150213012800}}||3||9955||3||'''387.18'''
+|[[#The Compound|The Compound]]||{{Time ago|20150216105200}}||0||3055||2||'''362'''
 |-
-|[[#Chuck Bryant |Chuck Bryant (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20150212182853}}||3||4404||0||'''382.89'''
+|[[#Vasile Adam|Vasile Adam]]||{{Time ago|20150216105300}}||0||3557||2||'''361.98'''
 |-
-|[[#Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year|Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year]]||{{Time ago|20150212043300}}||4||5264||1||'''369.95'''
+|[[#Francis Tan Huan Chun|Francis Tan Huan Chun]]||{{Time ago|20150216110000}}||0||4277||2||'''361.37'''
 |-
-|[[#BlueMarine|BlueMarine]]||{{Time ago|20150216013243}}||0||1558||0||'''360.67'''
+|[[#DaviX|DaviX]]||{{Time ago|20150216074000}}||0||4874||1||'''356.34'''
 |-
-|[[#Allan Barty|Allan Barty]]||{{Time ago|20150216030649}}||0||1437||0||'''355.94'''
+|[[#Ozone (festival)|Ozone (festival)]]||{{Time ago|20150216075130}}||0||1824||0||'''355.95'''
 |-
-|[[#Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia|Ambassador of Iceland to Colombia]]||{{Time ago|20150215053313}}||1||2650||0||'''355.62'''
+|[[#The CD Singles '91–95'|The CD Singles '91–95']]||{{Time ago|20150216081213}}||0||1483||0||'''354.99'''
 |-
-|[[#Nixie Pixel|Nixie Pixel]]||{{Time ago|20150216004116}}||0||2455||0||'''348.47'''
+|[[#Christopher Wehkamp|Christopher Wehkamp]]||{{Time ago|20150216110100}}||0||2571||1||'''346.26'''
 |-
-|[[#Treet.Tv|Treet.Tv]]||{{Time ago|20150216105000}}||0||2952||2||'''348.13'''
+|[[#Leviathan (song)|Leviathan (song)]]||{{Time ago|20150216170000}}||0||1952||1||'''343.45'''
 |}
@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delusions of Grandeur (Srl)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyon}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainskiye Otruba}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunico Films}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futura (clothing)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by STAR One}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Luisa Ugolini Bonta}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deutsche Babcock Al Jaber}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy (Nicky Romero song)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Golick}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohan Rathore}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton Women's Centre}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Bryant (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeastern Conference Baseball Scholar-Athlete of the Year}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueMarine}}
@@ Line 86: / Line 78: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nixie Pixel}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treet.Tv}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Compound}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasile Adam}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Tan Huan Chun}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaviX}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozone (festival)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The CD Singles '91–95'}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Wehkamp}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leviathan (song)}}