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 04:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
South Baltimore Neighborhoods	10 years ago	0	1781	0	34061.75
Derek Lyons	10 years ago	0	1703	0	25162.86
Christopher Myers (Special Advisor)	9 years ago	0	1935	0	12766.65
Davor Zupičić	9 years ago	2	2613	0	7047.64
Phonetics departments at universities	9 years ago	1	2843	0	4637.52
Don't Look Back into the Sun/Death on the Stairs	9 years ago	0	1483	0	2457.48
Bhavya Gandhi	9 years ago	0	814	0	1258.34
Star/Buddy	9 years ago	3	3593	0	907.1
Nanda Kishore	9 years ago	1	1988	0	740.41
Delilah (The Dresden Dolls song)	9 years ago	2	4088	2	644.99
ARAS (software)	9 years ago	3	12890	2	552.36
Noman Terry Towel Mills Limited	9 years ago	1	1624	0	550.13
MTP-II MATER	9 years ago	1	5529	3	549.76
Dalberg Global Development Advisors (3rd nomination)	9 years ago	0	4145	2	547.33
PC-DCL	9 years ago	0	1913	1	530.43
Fenner Hall	9 years ago	3	3854	2	520.48
R Prabhakar	9 years ago	0	3167	1	515.2
Endless Forms Most Beautiful World Tour	9 years ago	0	2082	1	515.17
Natter Social Network (2nd nomination)	9 years ago	1	12255	1	500.71
Jung Joon-young filmography	9 years ago	1	3620	1	499.5
Welker White	9 years ago	1	4209	2	497.6
JFLex	9 years ago	1	1863	1	497.08
WeOurFamily	9 years ago	1	2072	1	483.45
Gursharn Singh Randhawa	9 years ago	1	2679	1	483.3
Las Fieras	9 years ago	1	2591	1	482.11

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 soft delete. slakr^\ talk / 02:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

South Baltimore Neighborhoods

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

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

This article contains a list of "South Baltimore Neighborhoods" that are not located in Baltimore, stating that they are the "most suburban part of the Baltimore region". That statement is inaccurate and confusing, because the Southern District of Baltimore contains several high density urban neighborhoods. See South Baltimore, Baltimore and South Baltimore. Unless the article is significantly revised, and possibly renamed, it will not be verifiable. Folklore1 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty₈₄₅ 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, whereas the material may merit its own article, this new article will be written from scratch anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a forgotten OR project. A tagged stub sitting around for eight years. Should have been tossed ages ago. Pax 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect, probably to List of Baltimore neighborhoods#South, hopefully to be done by a Baltimore-knowledgeable editor after checking whether any material can be saved/merged. Offhand I don't know if those apartment complexes should be named...perhaps they should. If closer is not knowledgeable about the particulars, then copy/paste the content to a Talk-page section of the target article, instead, asking for a local to address it. --doncram 18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if Folklore1 (the nom)'s point is that the areas described may go outside of city of Baltimore into surrounding Baltimore County area (n.b. the county does not include the city, which is independent), then that issue should be put to the good people who have developed the List of Baltimore neighborhoods article. Maybe that list-article's scope should be expanded to clearly cover neighborhoods outside the city, or ones that overlap. --doncram 18:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:09, 15 May 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. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Derek Lyons

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

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. A handful of minor roles. No significant coverage to merit WP:GNG. Is a WP:BLP and I suspect a WP:COI. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty₈₄₅ 00:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete A film and television extra with a minor part in Star Wars fandom. He doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, just mentions on Star Wars websites and forums and merchandise sites. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy. This guy has an impressive pedigree and to be honest, I kind of wish that there'd been coverage of him out there somewhere. That he'd be an uncredited extra in so many popular films and shows is pretty interesting, so I imagine that he'd have some fun stories to tell. Unfortunately that just hasn't been the case here and none of his roles have ever been major enough to where he would attract notice. Sometimes people who routinely play as an extra will gain coverage enough to where they'd warrant an article, but this just doesn't seem to be one of those times. It's really, really unfortunate but Wikipedia just can't make up the difference when there's no coverage. He's not even really that big of a person in the film about the SW extras since I can't find anything out there about his specific role in this upcoming film. I have no problem with anyone wanting to userfy the data in case any sources do emerge, although I will admit that it's probably going to take some serious letter writing campaigns to get any of the mainstream media outlets to notice and write about him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 3 May 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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Myers (Special Advisor)

Christopher Myers (Special Advisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is two short sentences. It was tagged as a stub a year ago with no improvements. Even Mr. Myers would say he is not notable enough for a separate article based on unproven and unprovable gossip. It seems to have been created simply to maliciously dig at the Conservative Party.Purplethree (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty₈₄₅ 00:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable junior bureaucrat. Pax 08:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Backroom strategists don't get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because they exist, and there's nowhere near enough content or reliable sourcing here to even attempt a claim to passing WP:GNG in lieu. I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can substantively improve the article to make and reference a much stronger claim to notability than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 30 April 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Davor Zupičić

Davor Zupičić (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)

Hello,

as you can see from the edit history of the "Davor Zupičić" page, it is constantly being rewritten, vandalized and false information is stated.

Being the person from the article (Davor Zupičić here), I'd much rather see this page shut down than having to check on it every once in a while and hope there's nothing offensive.

Besides, this page was created as a joke four years ago and just kept on existing.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdavoz (talk • contribs) 18:21, January 17, 2015

• Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty₈₄₅ 01:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIODELETE. Monty₈₄₅ 01:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per request and WP:BIODELETE. Has only a few passing mentions via Google and could be easily re-created later, when notability increases. GermanJoe (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 24 April 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. Davewild (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Phonetics departments at universities

Phonetics departments at universities (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 explained briefly on the Talk page of this article why the article in its present form should be deleted. Its title implies that it lists universities with a Phonetics Department, but the universities on the list do not have departments with the name 'Department of Phonetics', though they do do teaching and research in phonetics. There are very few Departments of Phonetics left in the world, most having been absorbed into larger academic units. If the article were to be changed to list all places where phonetics is taught, researched and studied, it would be useful, but this article is so far short of being comprehensive that I believe it to be very misleading. RoachPeter (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty₈₄₅ 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Unclear. Besides what the nomination says it is quite possible that the word "phonetics" means different things in different languages, at least as it relates to a topic of study. Borock (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Rpclod (talk) 12:11, 2 May 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. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't Look Back into the Sun/Death on the Stairs

Don't Look Back into the Sun/Death on the Stairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted because it only covers a single version of the Don't Look Back into the Sun EP. The complete information about the song and it's releases (as well as other EPs) are featured on the song's page, including information from this acticle. Therefore it's not worth existing. Twistandshout28 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 14:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 30 April 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 02:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage or anything to demonstrate sufficient independent notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per DAJF. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:59, 14 May 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 Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bhavya Gandhi

Bhavya Gandhi (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 Indian child actor Jim Carter 11:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep He plays a major role in a popular Indian TV show Rahul^{Text me} 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This discussion was originally and erroneously transcluded to the 2012 Jan 1 log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect - Obviously, moving this to the show's article is the best option as he has not established independent notability and is best known for one show with one movie aside from that. The awards are also for the show and searches including this show there is not significant and in-depth coverage about him. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah as he's been in that programme since 2006, I can't find any evidence of notability and unfortunately just 'cos you've been in a tv programme doesn't mean you get a free pass to an article. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 26 May 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. Wizardman 21:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Star/Buddy

Star/Buddy (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)

Tagged as unreferenced and non-notable since September 2011. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Prod removed with edit summary of "deproded - so why not redirect it?) " Not sure I see this as a valid search term, surely searchers will look for the individual tracks, not the combined artificial title used by WP. Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 April 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 12:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (albums) Albums should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Even if an album is otherwise notable, there is no reason to indefinitely keep an article which can only list the names of the songs and who performed them It's clear that while this could be argued "notable" there isn't enough material to create a reasonably detailed article. I propose turning this into a redirect per the same guideline Albums that don't have an individual article should redirect to another relevant article, such as the artist or band in question. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – or redirect to Basement Jaxx or Basement Jaxx discography page. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NALBUM, both songs fail WP:NSONG. Just because someone created it as an article once is not a reason to leave a redirect, and I have trouble seeing it as a likely search term. By the article author's own admission, this is a "rare" single. ― Padenton|✉   00:55, 29 April 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nanda Kishore

Nanda Kishore (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)

Director who seems to fall under too soon. Only 2 films so far. (love the note super hit) Wgolf (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

super hit is true as per the industry we are in. Kannada industry

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm seeing a fair bit in the Indian press about Kishore, who is apparently an up-and-coming hotshot. I think this is a WP:FILMMAKER pass. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: This debate has been relisted for further input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are lots of available sources online. Unlike producers (see WP:MILL), directors are auteurs. He seems to pass WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - While I am unable to find any major source focusing on him except for this, there are numerous mentions about his work, vision, direction by his peers, actors, and other people working with. He appears to have quite a buzz among in the Kannada film industry. Should pass WP:DIRECTOR. — Yash! ^(Y) 21:28, 3 May 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 Yes, Virginia.... It looks like the discussion agrees to fall back to a redirect slakr^\ talk / 06:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Delilah (The Dresden Dolls song)

Delilah (The Dresden Dolls song) (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)

Gives no indication of its notability and does not appear to be deserving of its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment At worst, redirect to Yes, Virginia... rather than delete. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed with comment WP:SONGS#Notability supports redirecting to the containing album: "Most songs ... should redirect to another relevant article, such as ... a prominent album ...". So I agree, that "at worst, redirect to Yes, Virginia... rather than delete." — Lentower (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep for now. In the limited time I have had in the last few days, I have not found any great WP quality sources for this song, Delilah. But in the interviews and reviews I have read about this song and the album it's on, this song is mentioned most frequently. I added one source. I also added {{notability}} seeking others to wok on this article. Further research should find better sources. There are also several print sources, not on the Internet, that can be checked. They will take a while to track down. — Lentower (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect as above. Absolutely no sources to support a claim of independent notability. Neutrality^talk 04:03, 28 April 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

ARAS (software)

ARAS (software) (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 looked for sources and did not find enough sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Possible it could've been CSDed as promotional given it's currently only a list of features and basic description with no secondary sources... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, some sources in the direction of "if you have JACK you might also like ARAS" exist, but as I don't know the topic I didn't bother to add it, because I couldn't explain why a Softpedia review about JACK helps with the notabilty for ARAS. Hopefully some Linux folks with a clue can help out here with reasons to delete or keep this article. It's not spammy, free software, no speedy required. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:19, 3 April 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) 04:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• Delete - no RS turned up at search. Does not fit CSD because it certainly is not unambiguously promotional. Being free software is irrelevant: a political tract or an NGO's press release would be promotional even if it did not ask for money. Tigraan (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, why Airtime, Campcaster and OpenBroadcaster meet the requirements and why ARAS does not?

Blueinsect (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Blueinsect: WP:OTHER is not a reason to prevent deletion, but specifically, Airtime won an award, Campcaster was featured in BBC reporting and OpenBroadcaster seems to have some sources to indicate notability too. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Google search, "openbroadcaster" "radio automation": 636 results, "aras" "radio automation":868 results, between them: [1], [2] or [3] Blueinsect (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an invalid WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. Tigraan (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

An invalid WP:GOOGLEHITS argument but a valid argument 'OpenBroadcaster seems to have some sources to indicate notability too'. Good. Blueinsect (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Provide them, if you are so sure of that. I am confident I would dig up many hits with "<X> is a moron" replacing X with a famous politician of your choosing, but I doubt any of them is to a reliable source. Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about notability, not about the reliability of the results, that should be determined one by one. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• See also [4] Blueinsect (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, updated, single purpose account. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is my first article, not a single purpose account, bad argument. Blueinsect (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly valid reason for my update, and ignoring bots and nomination nobody else contributed to the article so far. I'll bite and click on your six links added below:

1. Audio news (twice): Six years old español blog entries, not obviously notable (bring Hydrogen audio or Doom9, and I flip to keep per WP:HEY)
2. Analfatecnicos: In essence a non-notable link collection mentioning ARAS among many others
3. Radialistas: Ditto, if that's a notable site for the language I wouldn't know it, and non-English sources on enwiki wouldn't be optimal. BTW, do they say that they don't like ARAS as of 2011?
4. medioscomunitarios: another link collection. Did you include English pages in your search? I miss the Softpedia JACK review mentioning ARAS.
5. jackaudio.org: Their home page does not mention ARAS, and this site is already used as the so far one and only 3rd party reference.
6. Manual (PDF): Might be okay, add language=es to the {{cite web}} if you want to reference it in the article.

Summary: One PDF. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks WP:RS and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RS. Two absolutely reliable sources: [5] and [6].
• Comment WP:GNG. Some significant coverage from independent sources: [7], [8], [9] [10], [11], [12].

sourceforge.net is certainly not a "reliable source" since it is a mere sharing platform, similar to (say) tumblr: anyone can publish there. The jackd.org source redirects to about.me (same thing). Same thing for wordpress; CTP Cordoba, Radialistas and Analfatecnicos look like militant websites (I cannot read Spanish); the page on Medioscomunitarios is a list of every software, hence a "passing mention".

I consider [13] a reliable source since it is the official website, and of course [14] is also a sharing platform. The rest of the links may be militant? websites but also independent media covering this topic. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The URL was mistaken, it is [15]. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to bite a newcomer and I understand you might have trouble with English as a second language, but did you even read the guidelines you quoted? Just to clarify, the sources need to be at the same time reliable, independant, and deep-coverage. Please at least read WP:42, it is a short summary; I am not spending anymore time reading your sources if you do not even check them before. Tigraan (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to spent your time in reading the sources I have provided you shoudn't be able to decide on maintain or delete this article. I don't know your notion of reliability and independence, but if you feel good by deleting a free software article, do it. Blueinsect (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Blueinsect: The guidelines are not Tigraan's own. "Notability" is kind of a technical term and shouldn't be confused with "importance" or "significance". It's a quasi-objective measure of those sorts of things based on extensive consensus-building discussions over the last 14 years. An official site or a site written by the company or an involved person, is a reliable source for some basic information, but cannot be considered here because it's are not "independent of the subject". Anybody can write anything about themselves -- what Wikipedia wants to cover is what publications like newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and others that are "reliable" in the journalistic sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Tigraan's own guidelines but about her/his notion of reliability and independence. I provided some sources that may be reliable and independent:

[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].

1. Do these sources involve a significant coverage?

"We need significant coverage. This helps show that a topic meets the notability guidelines. We need sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it."

The first quasi-objective question is: how much is significant? how many sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail should we consider?

2. Are these sources reliable?

"We need sources that are reliable. Usually this means that the publisher has a reputation for fact checking. Choose: books, newspapers, or other periodicals. Not: discussion boards, fansites, Facebook, YouTube, or most blogs."

The second quasi-objective question is: which publishers have a reputation for fact checking? which books, newspapers, periodicals or minority of blogs should we choose?

3. Are these sources independent?

"We need sources that are independent. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. We want readers to be able to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. So, please add footnotes to your article."

And the third quasi-objective question is: how do you warrant that sources are independent or not?

I tell you the same thing, so if you feel good by deleting a free software article, do it.

Blueinsect (talk) 22:19, 25 April 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 06:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Noman Terry Towel Mills Limited

Noman Terry Towel Mills Limited (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:ADMASQ, and part of a set of articles and drafts on this corp by this editor. CSDs and PRODS for this rationale contested, hence AFD Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete, Noman Group of Industries has been already deleted as advert.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 27 April 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 10:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Brief mentions in some of the articles cited do not confer WP:Notability. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - The article has a few news links but it still falls short of notability. News, Books and browser searches as well as Highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 1 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

MTP-II MATER

MTP-II MATER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability since Marasmusine added the tag seven years ago; time for a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

the link to cordis for this project, given in the first deletion request above does not work. this is the perfect example that links pointing to somewhere on the web, are not reliable. some years ago, i have started to open lemmata of EU-research projects to have reliable links. all were deleted, MATER is the last remain. this ends up in a discussion about the relevance of research projects. the related article in wikipedia says, that a project must be large to be relevant to wikipedia. hard to find the propper definition of "large" for a research project - where is the limit in euro or man power or topics between relevant and not relevant. i am an inclusionist and i am wondering, why there is a limitation for research projects producing new knowledge for mankind. the eu spends billions of euro for its international reasearch and interesting findings are beeing published every year. tiresome discussions. Hannes Grobe (talk) 19:04, 29 March 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 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is repeatedly relisted rather than closed due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. The EU Marine Science and Technology program under which this was funded may well be notable. I'm dubious that research grants, even large ones, are really a good subject for encyclopedia articles, but if they are then the Mediterranean Targeted Project may be large enough and written-about enough to be notable. I think it's quite unlikely that a single phase of a research grant (which is what the title refers to) is itself notable. And in any case we have only primary sources. If there were a larger parent article to redirect to I'd say merge but in the absence of one I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 27 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Dalberg Global Development Advisors

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors
• Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors (4th nomination)

Dalberg Global Development Advisors (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 third party references for notability. Essentially promotional article, mostly worked on by now-blocked paid editor. (previous afd nomination was pre-empted by a G11 speedy, but that speedy was reverted by the admin who placed it) DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or find significant independent coverage. Also, blank/revert all content added by the paid editor as it is bad for the rep of all involved. I have no idea where to look for independent coverage. Dalberg's own work and its joint work in the Financial Times suggest that it is highly notable, yet a naive web search shows me nothing. (Note: The original copyvio by inactive user Joe Capp (talk · contribs) was blanked and doesn't appear in the current article.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry to change my view so quickly, but the Rolling Stone article mentioned at Talk:Dalberg Global Development Advisors#Suggested Links looks significant at first glance, and if The Expatriate is an RS (it is new to me), then I could be persuaded towards a keep opinion. (I didn't try to track down the Business Week dead link.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and send for cleanup. If the paid editing material isn't there the article would have been in much better shape (and not be a repeat customer at AfD), but otherwise the organisation is notable with repeated appearances on the media. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 12 April 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 13:07, 20 April 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. No substantial improvements have been made - in over a month's time - to the article in question which address the concerns of the editors here. Therefore, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

PC-DCL

PC-DCL (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 can find no reliable references on this topic. There is one review at http://jonesrh.info according to google, but I can not get that site to respond. Otherswise I find no sources, whatsoever. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment:, http://jonesrh.info/dcll/index.html works for me at the moment. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable old project, and the one line article cannot be merged into DIGITAL Command Language without any reliable + notable reference. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, I suggest the author be allowed more time to develop the article. I have added two external links. Biscuittin (talk) 23:11, 29 April 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 Australian National University. The article content is still available in the article history for possible merging. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Fenner Hall

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

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

This is a reverted redirect that fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Other residential hall pages which will need to be deleted: Burgmann College, Bruce Hall (Australian National University) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.111.46 (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Australian National University. Very little decent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Merge all 3 in to Australian National University - Not really seeing much point to having seperate articles when they're all best suited in one, If the redirects are reverted the next best place is WP:RFPP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect all, agree with above. Neutrality^talk 03:55, 28 April 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. Unopposed delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

R Prabhakar

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

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC as well as notability criteria. Educationtemple (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete—This is going to be a cursory examination, but perhaps that's better than nothing. My reading of WP:NACADEMIC would not allow notability through his position of Secretary at Coimbatore Institute of Technology. Of the papers listed in the article I see the following citation counts in gscholar:

1. 1975a (not listed)
2. 1975b (not listed)
3. 1977 (38)
4. 1983 (not listed)
5. 1984 (not listed)
6. 1985 (not listed)
7. 1990 (not listed)
8. 1989 (not listed)
9. 1991 (not listed)
10. 2004 (not listed)

I'm familiar with the several biases that exist in Google Scholar, but for this field in this timespan I'm comfortable concluding that the subject's scholarship has not had the influence required by WP:NACADEMIC. Looking over the rest of the article I don't see any other obvious paths to notability. Based on the foregoing, I recommend deletion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:20, 26 April 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Endless Forms Most Beautiful World Tour

Endless Forms Most Beautiful World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD removed without explanation. No evidence of satisfying any notability guideline of WP:NTOUR, WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Appears to be pure promotion for a tour that recently started. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete For all the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 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. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Natter Social Network

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Natter Social Network
• Articles for deletion/Natter Social Network (2nd nomination)

Natter Social Network (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 was deleted at AFD1 but is now being relisted following a discussion at DRV that closed as relisted with the agreement of closing admin. Since I am listing this as DRV closer in an administrative capacity I am taking no position on this content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Natter misses the mark for notability. 2 of the 3 references are unreliable (Career addict is an unreviewed blog platform and techspark is a volunteer joornalism site) the only reliable secondary source is a BBC story. I am going to propose that when WP:GNG calls for significant coverage it doesn't mean a single story. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I would recommend listing this in a directory wiki such as wikicompany.org not an encyclopedia. Per WP:ONEDAY, Wikipedia isn't made for things that are just cooked up. If natter takes off and becomes a notable thing then we can write an article on it, but it is missing the mark for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• More than three sources were provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natter Social Network and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 10#Natter Social Network. Have you reviewed them? Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Russell, Kate (2014-12-04). "Webscape: Alternative social media sites special". Click. BBC. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     Kate Russell of BBC notes:

     I am constantly being sent press releases about websites that claim to be the next big thing about social media but Natter wants to be the next small thing, serving up a Twitter-like platform with a limit of just three words. It's fun coming up with creative ways to express yourself with such a tight deadline or reading other people's posts. I can't see this becoming a platform people have actual conversations on them.

  2. Jordan, Chris (2014-10-07). "Startup Profile: Natter – the three-word social media platform". Tech Spark. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     According to http://techspark.co/team/^WebCite, Tech Spark has editorial oversight.

  3. Barnes, Laura (2015-03-02). "How I broke new social media site Natter in 120 seconds". PCR. NewBay Media. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     The article notes:

     PCR deputy editor Laura Barnes shares her views on the new social media website that's just secured a six-figure investment.

     ...

     Described by its developers as a nano social networking platform, ‘Natter.com was conceptualised as a three word networking service to allow friends to connect through short and snappy messages offering a new social experience’.

     ...

     “Natters tend to fall into one of three types: deeply considered and thought provoking three word statements, often with a sense of mystery, a simple check in such as ‘in the pub’ or those looking for the challenge and fun that comes with sharing their views in just three words,” comments founder Neil Stanley.

     According to http://www.pcr-online.biz/info/contact-us^WebCite, PCR has editorial oversight.
  4. "Natter.com Receives Six-Figure Investment". Business Matters. 2015-03-02. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.

     The article notes:

     Natter.com, the three word social network, has today received its first investment in the company as business ‘Angels’ have invested an undisclosed six-figure sum to help the tech startup continue to grow.

  5. "Trio launch website to fill social network gap". Bath Chronicle. 2011-01-27. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
  6. "Consultancy now provides training". Bath Chronicle. 2011-08-18. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.

     The article notes:

     A social networking website launched by a Bath company in January has introduced new features as it seeks to attract more users.

     Natter.com is one of two social networking sites run from The Tramshed off Walcot Street. Natter is run by former banker Neil Stanley, while Whisbird is run by the team that is also behind the Xcetra brand agency.

     Natter's aim is for people to make new friends around the globe by allowing them to converse via a webcam in a safe way. The only tools they need are an internet connection, a webcam and a genuine Facebook account.

     Visitors to natter.com are asked to select the sort of person they are interested in meeting. Having found a Natter user, the two people can then talk, initially for just one minute. Once the minute's up, the users then decide whether they want to continue their chat, and can decide whether to add their new friend on Facebook.

     At the end of every successful one-minute chat, both users receive a 'Natter point'. Collecting as many of these as possible benefits the Natter user in the future by indicating they are polite and friendly.

  7. Lamkin, Paul (2011-01-18). "Natter your way to new Facebook friends". Pocket-lint. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.

     There is editorial oversight according to http://www.pocket-lint.com/info/who-are-we^WebCite

  8. Smith, Mark (2011-05-05). "Fancy a natter with the new network boys?". Western Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-04.

     The article notes:

     TWO entrepreneurs are following in the footsteps of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg after launching their own social networking site.

     Phillip Harris, 25, and housemate Tom Fide, 25, are hoping their latest creation, Natter, will be the next big online phenomenon – giving people from Rhondda Cynon Taff a safe and exciting new place to find new friends.

     Natter, which encourages “friendly and polite” webcam chatting, has been described by Mr Harris as “a form of online speed-dating” – a market untouched by the larger internet corporations.

     It has the backing of CEO and co-founder, Neil Stanley (ex-Goldman Sachs and Lombard Odier).

  9. "Natter completes funding round". Newsco Insider Limited. South West News Service. 2011-04-07. Retrieved 2015-04-04. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  10. O'Hear, Steve (2011-01-08). "Natter launches as another attempt to create a "safe" Chatroulette". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-04-14. Retrieved 2015-04-14.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Natter to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• There are 2011 articles from the newspaper Bath Chronicle, the news website Pocket-lint, the newspaper Western Mail, the news agency South West News Service, and the news website TechCrunch.

  The second Bath Chronicle article and the Western Mail article in particular provide substantial coverage about the company. Both the 2011 and 2014 articles mention company cofounder Neil Stanley so I am certain that this is the same company. The company remains a social media network though their product has changed from webcam chatting to a Twitter-like platform with three-word posts.

  Based on the sources here, it is clear that Natter the company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 April 10#Natter Social Network participants Daniel Case (talk · contribs), WilyD (talk · contribs), B (talk · contribs), Calidum (talk · contribs), Mkativerata (talk · contribs), and Alakzi (talk · contribs).

  Thank you, Drmies (talk · contribs), for your kind words at the DRV and graciously agreeing to a relist.

  Cunard (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Not at all, Cunard: in a nutshell, you were right and I was wrong. I'm sorry it took me a couple of days to see it. Maybe I'm losing my touch--don't lose yours. :) Drmies (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:23, 19 April 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 10:03, 29 April 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. Wizardman 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Jung Joon-young filmography

Jung Joon-young filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of every single reality show, music show, and radio show appearance by singer Jung Joon-young. As per repeated consensus, such lists are not appropriate for Wikipedia and such lists have been consistently closed as "delete" at AFD. The only material appropriate are the three roles at the beginning, acting roles in film and TV. They are already mentioned at Jung Joon-young but could be also included in a filmography section in a table of that article, as well, if someone so desired. Absolutely no need for a standalone filmography article, as there is insufficient material to merit one. Also, this entire article is unsourced. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Most of this material is more appropriate for a fansite. For example, all K-pop artists perform regularly on music shows so there's no reason to list them all here. Major variety show roles like We Got Married are already mentioned on the main article. Random86 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉   21:30, 29 April 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. Wizardman 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Welker White

Welker White (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)

While Ms. White had a prominent if small role in Goodfellas (not mentioned in this bio), I searched high and low and unfortunately can't find any independent sourcing on her, and her roles don't meet criteria of WP:ENT. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 4 April 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 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen much less accomplished performers' articles remain unchallenged in this way. I don't see any reason to delete this one specifically. I added some text based on a quick bit of research I did on the web. Perhaps if this actress was dead or retired and we could definitively know the impact of her range of work and performances, we could make the decision that it's not especially notable, but I'm unwilling to make such a decision in light of the fact she is still working in a variety of ways. Careers are cumulative.--SidP (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sid, I would love to rescue this article, as I loved her brief performance in Goodfellas. But I just couldn't find much and this article was so brief it barely seemed worth having. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, little significance coverage by reliable sources and hence fails WP:BASIC requirements for a biography. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 12 April 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 13:08, 20 April 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

JFLex

JFLex (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 don't find evidence of notability for this tool. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up some brief mentions on blogs and computer science department pages, but no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 09:45, 14 April 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 13:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: After a search on the internet, I've come to the same conclusion as Dialectric. There are a lot of tutorials and forums and the like, but unfortunately there's nothing like media coverage. Orthogonal1 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete All sources are unreliable, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 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. Wizardman 21:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WeOurFamily

WeOurFamily (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)

Unremarkable social network. All sources are primary, no reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, though it was one of the four post-2007 social networking sites to be briefly studied in a book, I don't think that alone meets WP:GNG. The 2009 CNN Report is user-submitted and not verified by CNN. Can find no other independent coverage. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 14 April 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, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉   21:37, 29 April 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. Wizardman 21:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Gursharn Singh Randhawa

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

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

Not a notable figure. Article not sourced. No significant contribution to Indian Science could be found on google. Educationtemple (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FAILN, a notability search comes up with Dr. Randhawa's work but not coverage on his work, so while worthwhile it isn't notable. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing this content in WikiBios or another Wiki but it falls short of an encyclopedic topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 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 12:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉   21:35, 29 April 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. slakr^\ talk / 01:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Las Fieras

Las Fieras (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)

Already 2 years passed since this article was created and until the day of today, this soap opera has not released, nor have any announcement on its premiere. I think that it should be created when at least Televen announce its premiere. Philip J Fry Talk 14:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete-Might of been a show that was cancelled before it aired is my best guess. Wgolf (talk) 18:06, 11 April 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 13:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Does not passes GNG from what I see. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• 'Delete Seems this still doesn't exist, and probably never will. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 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.