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 03:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Naik Foundation	11 years ago	2	2805	0	68236.56
Western Rite Orthodox Catholic Church	9 years ago	1	2798	0	3528.12
Simon Davies (lawyer)	9 years ago	1	4359	0	3272.17
Kourtney Compton	9 years ago	2	1285	0	1498.31
Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety	9 years ago	3	5125	1	1117.71
Boston leadership institute	9 years ago	1	4654	2	452.34
Avion Entertainment	9 years ago	1	1966	0	419.65
I Dieci Comandamenti	9 years ago	1	2817	0	419.47
Gli anni di Cristo	9 years ago	1	5610	1	417.45
Connected (docu-series)	9 years ago	1	3746	0	416.1
Senthilmani Mayooran	9 years ago	1	1566	0	415.59
Canine Caddy	9 years ago	1	3432	0	413.74
1574 Meyer	9 years ago	0	1433	0	406.14
Disinfect (band)	9 years ago	3	4388	1	405.53
Sonia Anderson	9 years ago	1	1574	0	405.16
L'excellence	9 years ago	1	1390	0	400.99
Knee hockey	9 years ago	2	3862	2	392.1
GNOME-PPP	9 years ago	1	3943	0	382.68
Mere Humrahi	9 years ago	1	3472	2	375.43
Scott A. Johnson	9 years ago	1	2560	0	365.3
1549 Mikko	9 years ago	1	1257	0	356.11
1605 Milankovitch	9 years ago	1	1405	0	356.05
1630 Milet	9 years ago	1	1527	0	356.02
1458 Mineura	9 years ago	1	1354	0	355.97
1670 Minnaert	9 years ago	1	1366	0	355.95

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Naik Foundation

Naik Foundation (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)

All sources in the article are either primary, only mention the group in passing or have nothing to do with the foundation. Many of the articles are about someone named Naik (I assume the foundation founder) buying bookstores in various countries. I have not been able to confirm any information in the article. I also had to remove a few very sketchy looking links, one was not even a website, just an IP and a port. Two obviously related single purpose accounts have been editing the article, almost looks like the article creator forgot his password. The notabilty tag was removed and all the bookshop links were added by the second account. One of these accounts also upload the logo claiming they own the logo, indicating self promotion. Ridernyc (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Agreed, all of the references listed are either irrelevant to this group or insufficient and my searches through Google US and India provided nothing useful. This foundation certainly has a noble cause but it would need a complete rewrite with appropriate references. Considering the first external link that the article lists is Marathi, it is certainly likely any useful sources may not be English or Internet-based. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - As per SwisterTwister. Irrelevant references seem to have been added to lend notability to the subject. - MrX 01:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Most of the citations are either self-published and unreliable or trivial mentions. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organisations.--xanchester (t) 09:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. News results include this article in Express India, but it appears to be about a similarly named but different foundation. I could be wrong, though, because it apparently operates in Gujarat. Nothing significant turns up in web results. Nothing in books. Having said this, I realize that there could be significant coverage in non-English sources. If such coverage can be shown to exist, I may change my stance provided that it's significant. For now, though, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGO. --Batard0 (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (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) 00:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Western Rite Orthodox Catholic Church

Western Rite Orthodox Catholic Church (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 reliable sources, questionable history, and incoherently written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMDG4 (talk • contribs) 23:58, April 12, 2015‎

Procedural Note This is a lost AfD nomination that was never transcluded. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared at AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 17:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• More inclined to delete as there doesn't seem to be significantly good sources about this. The Italian wiki has some but nothing looks good but found some looks particularly either while News found one link but it says "Ethiopian". I would have also suggested moving to Arnold Haris Mathew, the only actual link to this article but this is only mentioned through a "see also" section. Searches at Highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newspapers Archive also found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete In the absence of good sources there is no safe target for a redirect: the situation is tangled and this title cannot be unambiguously identified with Western Rite Orthodoxy, Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe, or Old Catholic Church: Noyster (talk), 09:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete -- I strongly gain the impression that this is about Old Catholic Church, whose British emanation has exactly the same founder at the same date. At best this is a POV-fork. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 6 June 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) –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Simon Davies (lawyer)

Simon Davies (lawyer) (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)

Simon Davies is only "notable" for his appointment as managing partner of Linklaters, information which is already included in and sufficiently covered by the Linklaters page. Other managing partners, some of whom run larger firms that Linklaters, do not have standalone pages. I fail to see why an exception should be made for Mr. Davies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snodgrass420 (talk • contribs) 13:16, April 16, 2015

• Procedural Note This is a lost AfD nomination that was never transcluded. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in an AfD log. Monty₈₄₅ 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable as a biographical subject at present, and the article's information (except for wife, etc.) is elsewhere. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Linklaters where he is mentioned as multiple searches found results for his position at Linklaters so it seems he is best known for that. @Hithladaeus: Any thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree. Linklaters indicates already a change in leadership. A "merge and redirect" would mean that the unique material in this article would go in, but the unique material is exactly the "non notable" (per our guidelines) material (the identity of his wife, his college degrees). Therefore, it's a case of simple redirect unless Mr. Davies begins to be discussed by RS as himself alone (philanthropy, business philosophy, legal entanglements). Hithladaeus (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -- Linklaters is a very large law firm, so that its managing partner (equivalent to CEO) probably ought to be notable. However there is little on which he has achieved other than rising to this role at quite a young age. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article already contains three reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject:
  1. "Simon Davies: Linklaters". The Lawyer. 22 October 2007. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
  2. "Lawyer of the week: Simon Davies". The Times. 13 February 2007. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
  3. "Ex-Asia head beats odds to land top job at Linklaters". The Lawyer. 5 February 2007. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
  Here is another source I found:
  1. Leftly, Mark (2012-11-30). "The world is not enough for Magic Circle boss Linklaters' Simon Davies". London Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2015-06-07. Retrieved 2015-06-07.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Simon Davies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. --Edcolins (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. No prejudice regarding a potential merge to Linklaters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Peterkingiron, Cunard, Edcolins and NorthAmerica1000 above that this page should not be deleted. There is coverage of him in GNews including profiles of him. James500 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Kourtney Compton

Kourtney Compton (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)

Sourced to passing mention (list of high school graduates, high school debate team list, etc.), etc. Google search on this name finds exactly one press release. Meets none of the special WP:NMODEL requirements, SI and Maxim photo specials I don't think meet this bar. Brianhe (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMODEL. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I managed to find the same press release that Brianhe found, but nothing else to pass WP:BIO. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Was this correctly transcluded? Shouldn't this have been relisted/closed by now? Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe I did the necessary; it is one of the entries at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 14. Brianhe (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Brianhe: What do you think went wrong then? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea sorry. If I messed something up, I'll accept the egg on my face, but I don't think this happened. — Brianhe (talk) 16:49, 3 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety

Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety (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 real context, a single source and non-notable department Zackmann08 (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep - From my understanding, single departments of an entire territory (for example, Northern Mariana Islands) are automatically notable. This isn't the police department of a single municipality or even county. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

However I would like to merge this with Law enforcement in the Northern Mariana Islands, which I just discovered. However I think "Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety" should be the article title. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. Preposterous nomination. Does not lack context. Number of sources is irrelevant, but is much larger than one. (Hint: use a search engine next time, as this is required by BEFORE). State-wide (including province-wide, territory-wide etc) government departments are inherently notable. This one clearly satisfies GNG, though that isn't necessary. Merger would be inappropriate as there is plenty of coverage, it would reduce clarity of presentation and ought, in principle, to be to a parent unit of government, not an article on an activity that isn't the department's only function (in addition to "prevention of crime", the departments functions also include "protection of life and property" and "preservation of peace, order and safety" (Governor's Report, 2000, p 50: [6]), neither of which necessarily involves enforcing any laws. James500 (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay if Law enforcement in the Northern Mariana Islands redirects to Northern Mariana Islands Department of Public Safety? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether that article should be merged or redirected is irrelevant to this nomination as that article has not been nominated. If you want to redirect/merge that article to this one, and I think that is what you propose, your !vote here should be "keep". James500 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I voted keep :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 8 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Law enforcement organisations which cover entire territories, however small, are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• This AfD is long overdue for closure or relisting. It should be closed immediately as "keep", that being the clear consensus. James500 (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  Smth must have happened, because I do not see it transcluded. Will transclude it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 3 June 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. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Boston leadership institute

Boston leadership institute (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 may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 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) 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Omr2014, please, more info. Not all of us are mind readers. Why do you feel that way? Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Lack of independent sources suggests that the subject fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Deletion is a drastic step. The article now has 19 references including links to feature articles on, and mentions of, the organization contained in such reputable sources as Johns Hopkins University, New York Times subsidiary about.com, Northeastern University Marine Science Center, and three local newspapers from top-ranked Boston area school districts. Moreover, there appears to be a double standard at work. A program in a comparable arena, Internal drive (Idtech) summer program, contain only one reference and four external links. No one is suggesting that article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.103.54 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the comment immediately above this one. Be consistent. This article has room for improvement. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cathy. What improvements would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.157.204 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now it sounds like a promotional brochure. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Indeed, the article has 18 references, but they're soft as mush: a horde of blogposts, the subject's own website, local school sites, press releases, casual mentions and the like. What's missing is significant coverage from reliable media sources: while the wickedlocal.com is the home site of Gatehouse Media, which owns most of the small city dailies and weeklies in the region, the citation is to a two-article press release. The Citizen-Herald article is long, but that paper's a local tabloid weekly of the sort not generally held to meet WP:IRS, even if the article wasn't hosted on the subject's website.

  Beyond that, it's written in a blatantly promotional style, and was created and has been edited by several SPAs, some of whom have commented here; I wonder if there's a COI issue at work. Ravenswing 06:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• More inclined to delete and draft - I had been considering whether to comment but after performing some searches, it seems the amount of good sources for this may be less than shown. Searches at News, Books and Scholar found nothing significant and in-depth. The article is neat and sourced but there doesn't appear to be more sources aside from the current ones. SwisterTwister talk 16:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• ′′′′′In response to suggestions by Cathy and Ravenswing, sentences that appeared promotional were re-worded and additional information is highly factual. Ravenswing and sistertwister both wanted more references from national and major news sources. References have been added for ABCNews, CBS affiliate WBZ, Nature, Sailing World, American Chemical Society, Chemistry and Engineering News, a Wikipedia article, and Boston Globe. Note at least one link to the organizational website is to enable a Johns Hopkins Imagine Magazine article pdf file to be read. References to local schools are to not only Dana Hall Prep School, but also to MIT, Northeastern University, and Yale which, although local to those from the Boston area, are world-ranked higher education institutions.′′′ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.37.223 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - the "sources" in the article are the subject's own website, directories, press releases, listings that do not mention this institution at all, and even other Wikipedia articles. Searches don't yield any coverage in RS. Kraxler (talk) 17:53, 12 June 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) 18:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Avion Entertainment

Avion 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)

Does not meet notability criteria under WP:COMPANY - unable to independently verify whether the producers and musicians involved (Artin Pro, Avion Flower) have any notability. - Andrew Y _talk 09:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with your reasons above. A lot of work would have to go into this article to fix it. --☣Anarchyte☣ 09:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: LoMax Films has 1 listing on IMDB.com about a documentary being released in October 2015. But there is nothing on IMDB about Avion Entertainment. I would recommend waiting until the film is shown on television and then resubmitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simile (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 June 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I Dieci Comandamenti

I Dieci Comandamenti (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. " It was deprodded by }the creator with the following edit summary: "Internation critics and artists translated into other languages poems from this book and used poems to create lyrical songs. The book is adopted by a lot of national and international libraries as Cambr. University and quoted in indip. critical books". While I don't read Italian, the references seem to mention the book in passing, and I do not see any reviews. No reliable source has presented a review of it, nor does it seem to won any awards that would give it automatic notability. As I've suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gli anni di Cristo majority if not all of the works of Menotti Lerro do not appear notable and should be merged to his biographical article before they are deleted as stand-alone articles failing notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How can I add the delete vote for his "books"Devbasdev (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)?

• Delete There are no third-party RS, and I can't find any for this book. It meets none of the criteria for books. It's already a stretch that the author has a WP page (which itself has limited RS). LaMona (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 10 June 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) 22:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Gli anni di Cristo

Gli anni di Cristo (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. " It was deprodded by }the creator with the following edit summary: "A book of poetry quoted by RAI Television, by newspapers as "La Repubblica", "Corriere della sera", invited for presentation at important Festival as "Salerno letteratura" and judged by Barberi Squarotti as "a very good book" is without doubts notable". While I don't read Italian, the references seem to mention the book in passing. No reliable source has presented a review of it, nor does it seem to won any awards that would give it automatic notability. The creator should be advised that not all books are notable, and his attempt to promote Menotti Lerro by stubbing every work he created is not proper for the encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

:Dear Piotrus, thank you for writing it. I just want to let you know I like this poet and his amazing opera so, if you don't mind, I like working on projects about him because I think he earned it. In my opinion the book is notable, as in yours is not. And I respect your point of view. All the bestSellysellyheart (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

PS

I want to let you know that - at the least in Italy - it is almost impossible to be quoted "in passing" (as you wrote) in that newspapers, ecc. if your work is not really apreciated, in particular for poetry and more for not very "old" and "famous" poets... Regards,Sellysellyheart (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sellysellyheart: Dear Sally, I appreciate you writing about things you like (see my comment on your talk page), but if you want to have this article kept, please address the question I posed, namely how does it pass the Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, I think you are missing the point: I was telling you about 'my aim of working on things I like' to make clear that it is not my intention to "attempt to promote the author stubbing every work of him" as you said, but just because I like his work and I tried to propose it at the community. If they are not enough notable for it, doesn't matter, the community will decide it, but, please, do not write I am attempting at something (bombs like that, in this historical period could be dangerous... ;-) ) Is it making a sense for you? You seems to me getting too seriously your role and position... ;-) Do whatever prefer: delete, cut, break, ecc. I don't really mind. I give up! Take good care! And happy writing and deletions ;-) Sellysellyheart (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Menotti Lerro; only receives passing mentions, and there's little content to be merged, if any (I'm skeptical about quotes in praise of a book sourced only to the publisher, as it may be quoted out of context or there may be a connection between publisher and quoted person). Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's impossible to redirect something to a WP:REDLINK. Kraxler (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's delete these "books" soon!Devbasdev (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• delete no real claim of notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Note that User:Sellysellyheart has been blocked as a sock puppet. We've deleted the other books by Menotti Lerro in the last week, and are considering deleting his page as well unless more RS are found. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 6 June 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. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Connected (docu-series)

Connected (docu-series) (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)

Recent release, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS Flat Out (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that Connected violates WP:GNG at all, but it is not notable. Istead of removing this, though, I believe we should move it to a Draft namespace. AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey May 26, 2015 2:49 PM EST
@Northamerica1000: I have just copied this to its draft namespace at Draft: Connected (docu-series) so that the user's work will not be lost and may be swiftly uploaded once it reached notability requirements. The user really should've created a draft first. AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey May 26, 2015 2:55 PM EST

Comment - im not sure what you mean by "violates WP:GNG." I said it fails WP:GNG (which means it fails the standard for notability). Its better to move the article into user space than create another copy. I am happy to support userfication Flat Out (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have history-merged Draft:Connected (docu-series) to Connected (docu-series). Best leave all the history in one place until this discussioon has been settled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Looks like plenty of reliable sources exist covering the series, someone just needs to flesh out the article a bit with them. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...looks like the article was deleted, but a much better version of the same article already exists at Connected (TV Series) AKA Casey Rollins Talk with Casey 28 May 2015 11:28 PM EST

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - search Connected + Morgan Spurlock - sufficient coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 11 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Senthilmani Mayooran

Senthilmani Mayooran (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)

Failed to assert notability as per WP:ANYBIO - mentioned that the subject concerned won an award but failed to provide any reference nor any details suggesting that the award is notable. - Andrew Y _talk 10:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as unsourced BLP. Subject wrote one book, and tries to promote it. Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This article should have been WP:BLPPRODded, instead of going to AfD. Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That has been done now.— Andrew Y _talk 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not yet qualify for BLP prod deletion at this time because only two days have passed since it was added. As such, relisting the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be self-promotion without any suggestion or proof of notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.--Rpclod (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm not sure why it wouldn't qualify for a speedy delete, as there aren't any real claims for notability made, but, since we're here, this is a clear delete for failing notability and (self)-promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: Spammy on top of all other issues mentioned here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 10 June 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 Mickey Mouse (film series)#1940s. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canine Caddy

Canine Caddy (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 sources or indication of notability, little more than a plot summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:TVSHOW
• Cmt See also Mickey Down Under, probably some one is creating throw away accounts and creating these articles. I've PRODded it. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like some obvious sockpuppetry. I've issued a warning at one of the userpages and if they ignore that, then I'll do a WP:DUCK block for the newer of the two accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• They haven't responded with an explanation, so I'm going to block them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mickey Mouse (film series), a list article that contains a brief synopsis of all of the films in the series. Since this article contains little more than the synopsis, it really adds nothing that is not already at the list article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Cmt Ye Olden Days is another, by the creator of Canine Caddy. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 03:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Mickey Mouse (film series) as suggested above; nothing to suggest this particular film is notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 4 June 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) 07:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1574 Meyer

1574 Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Unsure. Observed in an occultation event [7] and mentioned briefly in several papers about resonances and about the spectral properties of Cybele and D-type asteroids. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: OMB@59km and thus somewhat more notable than a common MBA<50km. -- Kheider (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 11 June 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Disinfect (band)

Disinfect (band) (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)

Band does not meet notability per WP:BAND. --Non-Dropframe _talk 05:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - found only basic listings. The corresponding article in the German Wikipedia was created in March (though they've been around since 1999) and has no real sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Not enough reliable sources to establish band as notable. Saw some listings here and there on MTV, but that's it. Delete. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the notability of the sources, they are real sources, not notable as it seems (because they don't seem to mete mainstream criteria, maybe?). So shouldn't magazines (both print and online) not be used at all? Or is there a certain subscriber base required? One more question, for future articles: Why/how was it accepted as article in the first place? Looking forward to any help and thanks in advance.• Chrisnb

• To answer Chrisnb's question. Whether a source conveys notability is not related to its popularity or its specificity, but rather its reliability. In short, if a source has editorial control it is usually reliable and conveys notability. Looking at the sources in the article (which none of the above comments seem to have done):

Metal.de is an extensive review and the site appears to be a reliable source - conveys notability

Perun.hr is a modest length review and the site's reliability is possible, but unclear - doesn't add much

Eternity Magazine is an interview (semi-primary source) by a publication with unclear reliability - adds nothing

Voices from the Darkside (Chris Infect) appears to be a reliable source - adds a little, but not as much as a review or other non-interview would

Blabbermouth does not appear to be a reliable source

The-pit.de does not appear to be a reliable source

The rest of the sources are trivial mentions (tour dates, track listings, etc)

Overall, I would say that adds up to some minor notability: weak keep --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. I took my examples from similar articles, but this helped me a lot. • Chrisnb

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:45, 3 June 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sonia Anderson

Sonia Anderson (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)

Poorly-sourced biography of a producer of documentaries. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss her in any depth. Fails WP:BASIC. - MrX 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced BLP. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: a bad biography, no references. 333-blue 09:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now and move to userspace - My searches found no solid and in-depth coverage about her specifically and there's no target for moving elsewhere. I think we can wait until she's achieved some more coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 12 June 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 07:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

L'excellence

L'excellence (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)

Unsourced TV movie, fails WP:GNG. Page creator removed PROD by User:McGeddon. Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources, no indication of notability. I found nothing helpful on my own searches. Huon (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Unverified "miniseries" with one actor from Egypt (Maxell film studios?) -- no notability offered within the article, and no verification outside of it by this name (at least for me). Hithladaeus (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - My searches clearly found no good coverage aside from some foreign news links here. Unless good coverage exists non-English or offline, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 12 June 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 Hockey#Other_forms_of_hockey. Consensus here that a separate article is not warranted, but am defaulting to redirect as 2 of the 3 editors who argue against keeping suggest a merge or redirect. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Knee hockey

Knee hockey (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 version of hockey; perhaps a merge with Hockey would be best, though I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. The ones I located were brief mentions of the subject. Tinton5 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 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 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - this is actually a thing and apparently widely played, by all the mentions of it and specific equipment made for it [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG. I'm a Canadian, and I've never heard of it before. Since it's so obscure that the media don't even mention it here, I doubt it deserves a spot in Hockey#Other forms of hockey. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, or Redirect to Hockey#Other_forms_of_hockey. I looked at all of the citations listed by Мандичка. One had Knee Hockey in the title, but didn't mention it at all in the body. Others were advertisements, first-party (i.e. the National Knee Hockey League official site), or otherwise just not reliable sources sufficient to establish notability.

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 Wvdial. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GNOME-PPP

GNOME-PPP (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 an obviously notable bit of software. I declined a WP:CSD#A7 and decided a redirect to Wvdial would be a compromise, but was reverted. Bringing discussion here to see what other options we've got. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As kppp has a separate article, then GNOME-PPP should also. So deleting this article is a vandal POV. Fsfolks (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

kppp has also been nominated for deletion here for the same reason. Personally I think we should have fewer good articles on this topic area, rather than lots of stubby ones - that would be better for the reader wouldn't you think? The term "vandal POV" makes no sense, different people have different views and life would be incredibly dull if we all had the same opinions. Also, vandalism has a very specific term on Wikipedia - it means deliberately making the encyclopedia worse. Like this, for example. Having a different viewpoint to somebody else and enforcing it aggressively can certainly be disruptive, but it's not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that this is a good idea, since the WvDial article will not be enough to contain all detailed infos about kppp and GNOME-PPP. Fsfolks (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Wvdial Thanks Ritchie333 and Fsfolks. I would like to apologise first for applying the incorrect tag to the article. That being said, I cannot see much of a reasoning keeping the pages. As of right now, I cannot see how merging content from the two articles to Wvdial would cause much of a trouble. In addition, I do not believe the article meet WP:NSOFT. While I acknowledge the presence of the review at http://www.osnews.com/story/7253/Quick_Review_Introduction_to_Gnome-PPP, it would appear to me that it failed to assert GNOME-PPP as being significant in its particular field. The article also failed to claim importance in its content. If you have further details to add for GNOME-PPP and kppp, you are welcomed to add them to the articles and expand them. If further references are added then obviously it would help to convince people that this software is indeed notable. - Andrew Y _talk 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete. Articles about non-notable end-user front-ends belong on blogs or Wikia. I'm really dubious the notability of a lot of these Linux software articles, as most of them are just manuals. But I'll go along with a redirect for the sake of consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 5 June 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mere Humrahi

Mere Humrahi (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)

Unreferenced TV show with no signs of notability at all Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Weak delete. A Pakistani TV show, no refs. Not a hoax, but I don't see any RS. There is no Wikipedia:Notability (TV shows), so we are left with Wikipedia:Notability (media) it redirects to (in particular, WP:TVSHOW). "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market." In either case, references are needed to show the range of this show's audience. If such refs are found, ping me and I'll review them and possibly revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott A. Johnson

Scott A. Johnson (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)

Looks to be an autobio by a self-published author. There are a number of google hits, but most are social media. All sources are to subjects own websites. I'm pretty sure this is nn/COI, but have at it. - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I've heard of this guy and I've used his Dread Central reviews as RS on Wikipedia before, but he doesn't seem to have received coverage in RS. Dread Central has reviewed his book, but that'd be a WP:PRIMARY source on Wikipedia since there's an obvious COI there. Redirecting to Dread Central really isn't an option here since Wikipedia typically does not have a list of the staff members for any given company, partially because it can be seen as WP:UNDUE weight and mostly because that's not really encyclopedia style. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete unfortunately and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target and my searches found nothing good aside from one Books. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete He does not appear to have notability as an author, except perhaps within a very personal fan club. The article has been written by an IP SPA and the refs are nearly all to his site. Books are held in about a dozen libraries each, as per WorldCat. I'm truly suspecting WP:PROMOTION, to be honest. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 12 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1549 Mikko

1549 Mikko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect, agree w/above. Neutrality^talk 04:38, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1605 Milankovitch

1605 Milankovitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect. One lightcurve study [15] and the usual viewing-opportunity listings, but not enough in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect - agree w/above. Neutrality^talk 04:39, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1630 Milet

1630 Milet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect. One lightcurve study [16] and one physical modeling study [17] but they're both of large groups of asteroids and don't say much about this particular one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect - agree w/above. Neutrality^talk 04:40, 11 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

1458 Mineura

1458 Mineura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect. One orbital study (offline) and one photometric study [18] is not enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 June 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1670 Minnaert

1670 Minnaert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect. One group lightcurve study found [19], but not enough depth of coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect - agree w/above. Neutrality^talk 04:40, 11 June 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.