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 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Zura Barayeva	9 years ago	0	1267	0	2304.13
Nam Taehyun (2nd nomination)	9 years ago	3	3290	0	1278.78
Ravindra Kumar / IAS	9 years ago	6	9283	0	537.17
Live at the Forum	9 years ago	1	2905	1	504.45
Universel Murad Hassil	9 years ago	0	2917	2	472.85
Phantomjs	9 years ago	0	7002	0	437.33
Makers Academy	9 years ago	0	3084	2	425.21
Vartan (comics)	9 years ago	0	2513	2	425.21
Seeta kalyanam	9 years ago	0	2533	2	425.04
The Dirty Thrills	9 years ago	0	2588	2	425.03
Saeed Orokzai	9 years ago	0	4931	1	410.24
Volkan Karatas	9 years ago	0	2657	1	410.21
Mimi Đurović	9 years ago	0	3330	1	410.17
Lilli Spina	9 years ago	0	2878	1	410.14
William Raines	9 years ago	0	2623	1	410.07
Infogroup	9 years ago	0	2429	1	410.04
'Round the Square	9 years ago	0	2685	1	409.97
Microsoft Regional Director	9 years ago	0	2735	1	409.97
Jumping Back Slash	9 years ago	0	2310	1	409.96
BH Entertainment	9 years ago	0	2150	1	409.83
Stick Me Donna Majick Momma	9 years ago	0	1376	0	395.93
Vizion Interactive	9 years ago	1	8076	0	395.88
Helen Lundeberg/Eyeliner	9 years ago	0	1352	0	394.98
Flower/Halloween	9 years ago	0	1837	0	393.88
Collin Croome	9 years ago	0	5664	1	389.91

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) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Zura Barayeva

Zura Barayeva (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 notability. Axakov (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion page created without the afd2 template and was never listed on a log page. I've fixed this--no comment on the nom itself. --Finngall ^talk 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Keep, obviously notable enough that you found the article, created an account, and posted for deletion. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - no reason given for deletion. The stub has two good references. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - no reasons for nom or deletion are given. as per Bearian the article has two sources and is currently a stub that we can work on.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep a quick search on her name provides ample evidence that she is notable. The article needs improvement, someone should expand the article on her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 25 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 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nam Taehyun

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun
• Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun (Winner)

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

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

I've recently have come across the phenomena of fans creating pages for every member in a group including those who have done very little solo work. Since this member has no significant solo contributions and has done no notable work outside of the group I feel this page merely provides a very small amount of redundant information. Peachywink (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete:he is not notable work Outside of Winner (band) (Mrchurang (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC))
• Comment - I've fixed the nomination. Please close this no earlier than one week after this comment, barring WP:SNOW or procedural reasons. Thanks, ansh666 05:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I agree there aren't yet sufficient notability sources for him outside of membership in Winner (band). Redirect to the band. - Becksguy (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Not independently notable. Random86 (talk) 10:35, 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 // 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Live at the Forum

Live at the Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nuke and turn into a disambig page saying it's a live album by Killing Joke, link to Live at the Forum (The Jackson 5 album) and anyone else who's released a retrospective live album under that title. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) @ 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and recreate as disambig page per Ritchie333. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:40, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 00:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Universel Murad Hassil

Universel Murad Hassil (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 temple. It has been tagged for notability since 2011. Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is also non notable and has been tagged for notability since 2011:

Universel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:33, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Phantomjs

Phantomjs (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 software, some mentions found, but no in-depth, reliable sources Deunanknute (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• keep per new ref's Deunanknute (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Phantomjs" should redirect to "PhantomJS" which I was about to do but noticed the nomination for deletion. PhantomJS is widely used with millions of downloads, many dependent utilities, tools adhering to its APIs, and with many different use cases. I don't see how it is any less notable than software like Ember.js or Selenium (Software). Jsoverson (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any independent, reliable sources? Deunanknute (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am confident I can find any source that is required, but I wasn't sure what types of information should be included. There are videos recorded and books written about PhantomJS but I wasn't sure if those come off as promotional (none are by me). Large companies use phantom but it's often messages and comments by their employees that indicate it. Downloads, usage and activity are all high but i'm not sure how much should be added since that data is out of date as soon as it is included. Jsoverson (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

From WP:NSOFT:

Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

• The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
• The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
• The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
• It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability.

Deunanknute (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• To comply with (3) I added a section with an article& books written about and referencing PhantomJS. I can mention my own book "Developing Web Components" which has a portion on unit testing web components with phantomjs but I expect that to be considered a conflict of interest. Jsoverson (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of verifiability/reliability, I don't completely trust O'Reilly published works, and I don't trust Packt. The Threatpost and Stanford references don't contain any depth on the software, just a mention. The current sources are ok for citing facts, but they don't establish notability. Is there any in depth coverage from more reliable sources (book from a major publisher, article/review in a reputable magazine/website, etc)? Are there multiple schools with classes on it, not just that use it? Deunanknute (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • PhantomJS is the first of its kind that gained substantial usage and was the most viable, capable option for the past ~4 years. It has nearly 1m downloads last month from Npm_(software) alone (which isn't the primary download source, just the only number i could easily find). Other headless browsers targeting other rendering engines have come about (SlimerJS for Firefox/Gecko, TrifleJS for IE) and both have adhered to PhantomJS' api due to its fullness, popularity, and effectiveness. It is hard to find reviews of a piece of software that was the sole option for so long, and even when other headless browsers came about they were expected to be used in tandem alongside Phantom as a complement instead of an alternative. That those options also adhered to the exact same API in order to reuse existing scripts shows how notable PhantomJS was in its field. It's not the most exciting thing in the world, but it's very notable for web development testing alone. Add to that the malicious usage, server rendering, and web scraping and it's been a cornerstone in the rise of the web between 2011 & 2015. I'll be gathering more links and references and reaching out to others to do the same. Thanks for the responses so far! Jsoverson (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• How are the standards for notability applied? The List_of_web_browsers entry has an incredible number of browsers that are obscure, have no, few, single-source, or non-notable references. PhantomJS has substantial more usage & more references to usage than many of those browsers, despite all being considered 'notable' as judged by the comment in the page source ("This is a list of NOTABLE browsers, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia") even though many entries have substantially fewer resources (certainly no courses on the topic, no books, no print articles, etc). Jsoverson (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• notability is applied on a per case basis per WP:OTHERSTUFFXISTS. Basically, just because "Topic A" has an article, doesn't mean a similar "Topic B" should automatically have an article; and just because "Topic C" hasn't been deleted, doesn't mean it won't/can't be. Deunanknute (talk) 22:59, 18 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 01:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, sources & edits made since nomination seem sufficient. Personman (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• PhantomJS is around 50th most popular software repository in GitHub with 13,000 developers having highlighted as favourite, this puts it in the same space as other projects such as Redis, Django, CoffeeScript and Leaflet. In addition, PhantomJS has given rise to a large ecosystem of related projects and several testing frameworks that depend on it. There are probably hundreds of thousands of users out there. --Sdesalas (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please also refer to alternative headless browsers and note that PhantomJS is by far more popular than equivalent projects such as HtmlUnit who already have their own page. In other words, it is notable because it is significant in its specific field (headless browsers, and more specifically - automated testing of web applications). I'm a web developer and there are only two realistic options for automated testing of web applications, you either use Selenium Web Driver or PhantomJS, and only the latter is a true headless browser. Here are some other references from developers with similar experiences. --Sdesalas (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I just did a quick google check and there are indeed multiple printed third-party manuals on PhantomJS. There is Getting Started with PhantomJS (Packt Publishing, 2013) and PhantomJS Cookbook (Packt Publishing, 2014). The latter one has 8 reviews. --Sdesalas (talk) 03:24, 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. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Makers Academy

Makers Academy (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 computer course is non notable IMO - and borders on advertising. The guardian has listed it in a list of top 10 places to learn about computer programming - is that enough to count as a WP:RS? Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (prattle) @ 21:46, 12 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Vartan (comics)

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

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

No significant coverage at all. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I found two sources which mention and describe in some detail the series and added it to the article. I see that the comic series appears in the index of this encyclopedia, suggesting there is an entry on it, but the corresponding page is not available. Unfortunately I do not have time now for full-scale digging, and it is not a topic that interests me, but I am sure given that it was last published in the 1970s and in Italian, there is a lot more out there, in offline sources and possibly in editions of the Italian Cartoon Museum in Lucca.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, being unsourced is not a valid rationale for deletion, however sources have been provided and WP:HEY applies: [9]. Cavarrone 08:51, 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 redirect to Sita. (Closing as been up for 3 entire weeks with only 1 vote - This article appears to be a duplicate of Sita anyway so personally feel redirecting is best) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeta kalyanam

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

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

This is nothing more than an WP:ESSAY, with no WP:RS and probably full of WP:OR Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sita. Delibzr (talk) 15:45, 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. Soft Deletion as no arguments made against nomination after 2 relists. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dirty Thrills

The Dirty Thrills (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 band. No reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 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) 01:06, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 21:52, 12 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 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Saeed Orokzai

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

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

I came across this via an article that was up for speedy deletion (one of the re-creations of Ali Orokzai, the director's son). After looking at the article I noticed that there were no truly reliable sources in the article and despite the claims made in the article, I couldn't really find anything to back up any of the claims. A search for his film Loori (under "Loori" and Orokzai) doesn't bring up anything in a search either, despite the claims of winning multiple awards, nor does any of the claims of one of the director's films being burned by the Taliban. There may be coverage in another language, but a search in English brings up nothing to really show that the guy is all that notable. I know that English coverage is not the end and beginning of reliable sources, but it is usually pretty telling when a search brings up nothing to back up any of the claims. If anyone can find coverage I'm open to negotiations, but offhand the guy looks solidly non-notable. If this is deleted then I do recommend salting, as it appears that there have been multiple accounts and sockpuppets trying to re-create the article for his son Ali (I think that there have been at least 6 attempts at re-creation so far). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like there was an article that pre-dates this one at Said Worakzai, but it makes the same arguments for notability. Since the two are so similar in content ([10]) I've re-directed it to the current article and making a note of this here. I did perform a search under the different spelling, but nothing is coming up and I received more hits under the spelling of the current article than under Said Worakzai, so this new spelling does not do anything to improve notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 21:47, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:27, 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. Nakon 02:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Volkan Karatas

Volkan Karatas (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)

Nothing in the few English language sources suggest that this subject is notable. I find nothing about his first short film when he was 18, that supposedly should have won a price in Rotterdam. The two shorts mentioned in the article apparently has not achieved anything. I'm interested to hear if there is something interesting in Turkish language sources. The few I ran through Google translate did not bode well. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:49, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:32, 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. Nakon 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mimi Đurović

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

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

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

There may be sourcing in other languages but I really can't see how this person is notable. Basically a long-standing unsourced BLP. I've searhed for Mimi Durovic and Mirjana Durovic with little joy. It looks like other Veliki Brat winners (Saša Ćurčić, Miroslav "Miki" Đuričić, and Milan Marić) with articles all have far stronger evidence for notability (though unsure re: Milan)). Does her winning this show automatically render notability? I note that the regular season winners don't get an article of their own, but redirect to the regular season articles. Mabalu (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (natter) @ 21:47, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:25, 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. Nakon 02:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lilli Spina

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

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

Sorry - had a search, and this page seems very promotional and only has weak sourcing. Main claim of fame is that she is the only fashion designer featured in an apparently non-notable publication with the only sources to said publication. Even the designer's press page looks a bit feeble. Happy to withdraw nom if sourcing can be found, but not sure she passes notability. Mabalu (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (tell) @ 21:47, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete no different from any other fashion designer in Spain, Also this does seem promotional which doesn't help her case here, Anyway no evidence of notability so fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 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. Nakon 02:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

William Raines

William Raines (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)

Believe that he fails WP:NRU. He has only played U19, albeit for the national side. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON Gbawden (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (discourse) @ 21:52, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, from what I could find, there are insufficient reliable sources that give the subject in-depth or significant coverage. Therefore the subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps as the proposer says, it is WP:TOOSOON, and if a future editor can find reliable sources to show that the subject is notable than the article can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 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. Nakon 02:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Infogroup

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

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

I thought this might be an A7, until I looked at the complicated history. I think it should be deleted for combination of borderline notability and promotionalism, but there might be more usable material in the earlier version. I suggest looking at the talk p. before commenting here. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comms) @ 21:48, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:30, 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. Nakon 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'Round the Square

'Round the Square (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)

Regional web comedy; sources are all articles on a website from the same region. No sign of notability outside of Portsmouth NH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (consult) @ 21:46, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability, poor sources, appears to be non-notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:59, 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. Nakon 02:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Regional Director

Microsoft Regional Director (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, with one exception, all WP:PRIMARY, all captive Microsoft sources. The one exception, an SDTimes article, isn't even really about this regional director program. Googling turned up nothing useful. In addition, though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the article is overflowing with peacock language, e.g., describing the subject as "a vital link between Microsoft and the developer community". Msnicki (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 21:51, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Appears to be a notable distinction. Reliable sources appear to exist: [11], [12], for instance. ~KvnG 05:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, both of these sources are published by Microsoft, making them WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your evidence that these are published by Microsoft? ~KvnG 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, they're not published by Microsoft. But the reality isn't any better. Neither is a WP:RELIABLE source as we use the term and thus, neither is helpful in establishing notability. From their About page, "DevPro is a large and established community of developers, delivering comprehensive, independent content covering the entire Microsoft stack as well as Open Source and Docker initiatives." And from his About page, "TheWindowsClub, is conceptualized, created & owned by Anand Khanse, a Microsoft MVP since 2006, and an end-user Windows enthusiast." Msnicki (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I still say keep. Blogs and other material self-published by experts may be reliable. See WP:USERG. ~KvnG 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? Here's what it says at WP:USERG: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." How does that support you? I think we can use an WP:SPS as reliable for some purposes, e.g., a USENET post to date when Bash was released, but we never use an SPS for establishing notability because the essence of notability is that others not connected to the subject took notice and that they did so in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. That's not what you have here. Msnicki (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, really. The first source is not clearly a blog and you have selectively quoted WP:USERG leaving out, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." ~KvnG 15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So you're arguing that Anand Khanse and the unnamed authors at DevPro are established experts? Can you write the articles first? Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be surprised there are not WP articles on these subjects? You don't need to be notable to be an expert. ~KvnG 06:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but you weren't offering them as just any experts, these are supposed to be established experts whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Since there are no articles on these experts, perhaps you can point me at their published work in reliable third-party publications. Then again, maybe you can't. Msnicki (talk) 06:55, 25 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 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Jumping Back Slash

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

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP and written like an advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (reason) @ 21:50, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:35, 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. Nakon 02:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

BH Entertainment

BH Entertainment (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 Korean business lacks sources in English confirming its notability. Korean websites (via google translate) confirm its existence but not its notability. Fluent Korean readers may be able to comment more fully Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 21:50, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:35, 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 merge to Sonic Youth discography#Official bootlegs. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Stick Me Donna Majick Momma

Stick Me Donna Majick Momma (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)

Searched and haven't been able to establish this as Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Merge per WP:NSONG. Notability is not inherited from the artist and this seems to be a particularly obscure "release" with no independent notability asserted in the article. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Merge to Sonic Youth discography#Official bootlegs. This received some press coverage when it was released, but the current content can be summed up in the discography. Quite frankly, why wouldn't you want this to at least redirect to the discography? --Michig (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, that makes more sense. Changing my !vote above in favour of this option. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 11:51, 23 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 14:49, 27 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. The article is found to be promotional material and to have no potential to be notable for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Vizion Interactive

Vizion Interactive (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 is essentially an advertisement. Current sources (as of Feb 11 2015) do not meet reliability criteria and consist of press releases, links to articles written by employees, conference listings. What is needed is in-depth, independent write-ups by secondary sources in reliable publications explaining why this company is notable, what it is about, etc. Right now all the article says is that the company has principals who speak at various conferences. Possibility that this contributor is an employee of the firm which would constitute a conflict of interest. My sweeps of national publications, Texas-based news, computer-related media did not find anything indicating notability. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tom, I appreciate you flagging this since when it got approved I was surprised since I’ve been trying to get some better content and sources added. I was waiting on confirmation on some other pieces we had been mentioned in, AdAge being one. I had a feeling this might happen, but thought I’d keep doing some more research to add to it since it was already live. As regards to the points you made, if we need more information than just speaking at conferences I’ll work on getting that (hoping this can get set back to draft instead of being deleted outright). The publications that were linked were all included at the top of Ad Age’s Power 150 (see spots 10, 11, 12 when it was around. Since the notability I was looking for was industry based I hadn’t asked about any particular national publications that may have been included. I’m not sure how computer related media fits in; I think marketing or internet marketing would be a better fit. And lastly I wasn’t aware being an employee was something that would be a hindrance and after submitting it the first time and getting it kicked back this wasn’t brought up as a potential issue. I know there have been other company pages created by their own employees though they probably used a screen name that wasn’t their actual name, I didn’t see a point in trying to hide it. I understand if it can’t be placed back into draft, just thought I’d ask. (Joshuatitsworth (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)) comment added by Joshuatitsworth (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey if you can find several in-depth sources I'll rescind the nomination. Generally Wikipedia discourages situations in which people directly connected with a subject, such as an employee of an organization, writes about the organization, or when subjects of biographical articles write about themselves; please see these guidelines. The basic issue as you probably know is that it is hard for people to be objective about themselves or their own companies. About possible sources, possibly include this one if it is not there already. I assume you understand SEO, and that you know how Wikipedia, being a motherlode of eyeball traffic, is a tempting target for all kinds of SEO-oriented activities. Every day there are thousands upon thousands of people trying to promote products and services here. If your purpose here at Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia, great, but writing about Innovadex, a company that you used to work for, or inserting references into the article Search engine optimization which point to articles published by your colleagues at Vizion Interactive, such as this insertion pointing to this article by Vizion associate Josh McCoy, can you see how your history of contributions suggests your main purpose is advancing the interests of specific firms? In the larger picture, we all benefit when we have an encyclopedia that is impartial, neutral, non-spammy, like when you, yourself, use Wikipedia to hunt for facts about things, don't you appreciate not having to wade through swamps and swamps of spam.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Return to Draft - the page was accepted by a user now banned from AfC and blocked from Wikipedia for abusing the system. Unless Tomwsulcer objects, I will "speedy" return this to draft and close the AfD.

The author himself admits the page wasn't ready to be published, and I see no reason not to give him another shot. The current sources certainly does not work - all the articles are either written by Vizion people or have only a quote by a Vizion person. None describe the company at all. The only valid source is the Bloomberg profile, which alone is not enough to establish any notability. Incidentally, I would think a SEO company would be smart enough to realize adding links to Wikipedia does zip for SEO since all our links are "nofollow". --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete there does not seem any prospect of a draft eventually leading to a wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I just added what secondary articles I was able to find recently and removed the old "references" that were there. There really is no SEO implementation here other than branding, but I understand what's being said and will gladly accept whatever the outcome is.Joshuatitsworth (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Return to draft for potential further improvement. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 20 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 // 14:44, 20 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 15:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Return to Draft as per circumstances outlined by ThaddeusB. There appears to be an editor, Joshuatitsworth, interested in improving this so it should not be deleted yet. ~KvnG 04:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment The editor in question has also repeatedly attempted to add a reference link to Vizion on the Search engine optimization page. They have also done extensive work on the equally spammy KonyOne Platform, which I have just nominated for deletion here. I have some doubt whether their further work on this article will actually be an improvement. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)`

WP:AGF is the better path for me here. ~KvnG 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG. I have yet to see a CORP article containing the phrase "...one of the (umpitty) fastest growing (whatevers)..." which ever had a prayer of being anything more than WP:ADMASQ. Pax 11:26, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Helen Lundeberg/Eyeliner

Helen Lundeberg/Eyeliner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 02:35, 27 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 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Could be redirected to Rather Ripped if not. Relentlessly (talk) 21:51, 6 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 speedy keep. Merge has been proposed by nom. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Flower/Halloween

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

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

I suggest that this is merged/redirected into Flower (Sonic Youth song). Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy close Nominator is requesting a merge not a deletion and had already tagged the article for merger. Let that discussion take place on the appropriate talk page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:13, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Collin Croome

Collin Croome (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)

CSD contested. Article sounds spammy and lists many promotional refs (including self-published Apple Letter of Recommendation). He had some media appearances on social media but fails WP:CREATIVE. Dewritech (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dewritech, please help us to optimize the article.

As mentioned by Azubi-Deluxe (talk) on 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC):

This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance or promotional refs because

1. Mr. Croome is a public person and relevant in his industry, where he was one of the first (digital marketing) entrepreneurs more than 24 years ago.
2. He wrote and published several books and audio/video publications.
3. He regularly appears on public TV, in radio-shows and print-media, like magazine and newspapers.
4. He is consulted by public and private media, the German government and businesses for his expertise and opinion.
5. He is a lecturer for the acclaimed Mediadesign Hochschule in Munich, Steinbeis-Hochschule Berlin (HSB) and the University of the German Speakers Association.
6. Since more than 20 years he gives public speeches on digital marketing and new technologies trends.

Why does the article sound "spammy"? The self published Apple letter is an official signed Apple document. Mr. Croome has not "some media appearances in Social Media", but regular presence on public TV and radio.

Everything is referenced within the Wikipedia article and below…

We would be more than happy to change and fix any content, if it does not comply with the Wikipedia rules. Please stop deleting the entry. Thank you very much!

His Klout-score (77) is showing his influence in social media.

References

• Amazon Author-page: http://www.amazon.de/Collin-Croome/e/B004CB7PTW
• TV-appearances: http://www.croome.de/img/collin-croome-tv-interviews.jpg
• Radio Energy: (0:14) https://soundcloud.com/croome/sets/interviews-1
• Radio NDR: (2:04) https://soundcloud.com/croome/schuelervz_ndrinfo_10-04-2013
• Klout-score: https://klout.com/croome
• Lecturer for the GSA University: http://www.germanspeakers.org/dozenten/show/CollinCroome.html
• Lecturer for the Mediadesign Hochschule: http://newsroom.mediadesign.de/campus/erfolgsfaktor-social-media-gastvortrag-von-collin-croome/
• German Government:
• http://www.csu-landtag.de/index.php?ka=1&ska=1&idn=244#.VNSoA0Jt-I0
• Steinbeis-Hochschule Berlin: https://www.xing.com/companies/steinbeis-hochschuleberlin/employees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansmeyer71 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) @ 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

How do we solve this now? Could anybody please help? Hansmeyer71 23:00, 17 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! 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, notability per WP:N not proven by sources provided. There do not seem to be any independent sources confirming or even really hinting at his notability, or non-trivial coverage with Mr Croome as the primary subject. If there was an independent source stating clearly that he was a pioneer in his field, that he is recognised as one of the first digital marketing entrepreneur etc., that would be something, but I can't find any such thing. What we have here, based on the sources given, is a non-notable public speaker and social media personality. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I am very reluctant not to accept WP articles for German subjects covered by articles in the German WP, a WP with generally higher standards than our own. The editing history of the article there is not reassuring, especially since most of their edits are by a user named "Croome"; I do not think this would, if he were in an English speaking country, meet our requirements. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 27 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.