Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 30: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew JC Jackson}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy McKinney (baseball)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy McKinney (baseball)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party of Australia (founded 2014)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party of Australia (founded 2014)}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 23:12, 30 March 2015

< 29 March 31 March >

Purge server cache

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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew JC Jackson

Andrew JC Jackson (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 he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chicago Cubs minor league players. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 18:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy McKinney (baseball)

Billy McKinney (baseball) (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 GNG, WP:BASE/N, WP:NCOLLATH. WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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, default to keep. I can't see the discussion below converging towards either a keep or a delete consensus within another week so I'm closing this as NC. There are calls for this to be deleted as a recreation, but the history of the article (AfD deletion → refund → draft → move back to mainspace 2 months after closure of the previous AfD) precludes such a claim and this AfD should be treated as a fresh AfD of a fully rewritten article. Deryck C. 07:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country Party of Australia (founded 2014)

Country Party of Australia (founded 2014) (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)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Party (Australia). Why anyone would think this was OK to start a few months later without it passing a deletion review I have no idea. Either way, it's still WP:TOOSOON. It's unregistered (generally the benchmark for party notability), it's almost certainly never going to be registered under this name, practically all of the coverage is surrounding its founding. This is also not a new thing; people try to get "country parties" going all the time. Frickeg (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't !vote in the earlier discussion but I remember having a quick look at the article, and I would definitely have gone for deletion at that stage. The party certainly wouldn't pass any notability guidelines specific to political parties (no registration and no elections contested), but I think BDD's work in expanding the article pushes it over the line when it comes to the GNG. Two non-trivial articles from the ABC, three of the same from The Land, and one each from Queensland Country Life and Farm Weekly is a lot more than many AEC-registered parties, and definitely significant coverage in my book. The ABC is definitely an WP:RS, and I'd strongly argue the same of the three rural publications. I'm not a regular reader of them by any means, but I have come across them on several occasions (for Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia purposes), and I would suggest their quality meets or even exceeds the standards of the capital city dailies – they of course don't have the readership level, but they're on a completely different level to the free community rags you get in the metro area. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, someone is reviving the Country Party? Again? But this time, there is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, so I view this as meeting the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: So far, I haven't seen a Delete rationale that comes within a country mile of policy. I'm not seeing a single guideline or policy that says political parties have to be registered to qualify for articles, or disqualifying articles for being same-old-same-old. (Never mind that "yeah, no" and "it needs to go" are the sorts of rationales we see from sockpuppet anon IPs.) This meets the GNG. It's got substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Period. Nha Trang Allons! 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, those are the sorts of rationales you get from Australians who actually understand the background and know that this is probably the fourth use of that name for a loose political grouping this year. In Australia, we have the National Party which is a conservative political party that claims to be "from the country" (rural, bush, etc) and used to be called the Country Party. Problem is, plenty of people don't agree that is what they represent and there is a culture of independents (non-aligned candidates) running against the National Party because the largest opposition party (the Labor Party) don't do as well in the country. A few times a year, someone proposes to bring those independents together as the "country party" (a kick in the pants to the once-Country Party, now National Party). I'm not even sure all the sources are talking about the same iteration of that nonsense proposal. This isn't a real thing but every time someone suggests it, they get coverage in rural press because it is more interesting than cattle prices (actually, probably not, but they have the room to run both). This is not a "revival" or a "party" or even a "proposal" - it's just the latest brain-fart from someone who thinks they can organise a bunch of fiercely independent politicians into some loosely (no-very-cleverly-named) collective. There is nothing here to cover and we'll be back in 3 months when someone proposes a slightly different version of the same thing. The announcement wouldn't even pass WP:EVENT. St★lwart111 22:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's a big fat "So what?" There are a lot of articles out there based on things I think are stupid, but I don't get to unilaterally delete the Kim Kardashian article just because I think she's a media whore who's the 2000s' answer to Zha Zha Gabor. Nha Trang Allons! 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This should have been speedied as a recreation of a previously deleted article, but since it is receiving keep votes I'll again point out why this should be deleted. They are not registered with either the Australian Electoral Commission or any state and territory electoral commission, lacking even the extraordinarily low bar of 500 members (Australia has something like thirty federally registered parties). There is no evidence that they will ever be registered, and are particularly likely to not ever be registered under this name due to legislation around party names. They're a bunch of dudes intending to start a rural political party who sent out a press release announcing that intention that got picked up, on one occasion, by three rural-focused magazines and have subsequently gone nowhere. I am a staunch inclusionist on actual political parties, and if and when they actually make it to becoming a registered party, I will ardently argue the article should be kept; until such time as they actually achieve that, they're just another bunch of random dudes in a shed claiming to be a political party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The GNG is not a bright-line rule. Getting two or three news articles written about you online doesn't mean you're guaranteed a Wikipedia article forever and a day. So much is clear from the statement in WP:GNG itself that the guideline establishes a presumption of notability. Not a guarantee. Here, even if the presumption is established, it is rebutted. It is rebutted by the fact that it is a micro-micro-party with no formal status and a handful of members. And that the media coverage of its inauguration was fleeting at best. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. The candidates have less press coverage than I'd expect for an independent with any chance of getting elected. The group couldn't find enough people to nominate a group that gets an "above the line" box on the ballot paper so their How-To-Vote leaflet includes voting below-the-line for all of their candidates and at least one other to make a formal optional preferential vote. If they do pull a significant vote on Saturday (definitely if one is elected), I'm prepared to revisit this assessment; otherwise WP:TOOSOON to tell if they will ever become notable. --Scott Davis Talk 13:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't strongly disagree Scott, but if one of them is elected it would be as an "independent", not as a member of this non-party. They would still have to formally register the party after the election and then seek leave to join it as a Parliamentarian. Until that point it remains a non-party without an elected representative and nothing but a day's worth of coverage in local rural press. St★lwart111 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with this, for the record, but the thing is 0.0001% likely to actually happen so we needn't discuss it till then. Frickeg (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, which part? (Not that it matters - feel free to take it to my talk page). St★lwart111 03:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said "revisit" not automatically reverse my assessment. i don't expect it to become an issue. --Scott Davis Talk 03:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on; I think we're all on the same page (broadly). Ha ha. St★lwart111 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So best-case scenario is that one of their informally endorsed candidates runs second and another runs third. Endorsed candidates who lose aren't considered notable, surely the same applies to unendorsed or "informally endorsed" candidates. There is not a single member of the self-declared "party" anywhere close to being considered notable. Even if they were, the notability of their "party" (of which they are not members) would still be questionable. St★lwart111 22:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helen Dalton (Mrs 18% in Murray) lists her website as the Country Party's website on her Facebook campaign page, features "Endorsed by the Country Party of Australia" on her campaign posters, and has been described as running a "Country Party branded campaign" in rural media. I'm quite curious as to why you've chosen to use scare quotes around the word "party" and claim that their candidates "are not members" of the party for which they are running (???). Anyway, my point is that any standard of notability that says yes to these sorts of parties simply because they're registered, but no to a party that can outpoll major parties in two electorates (on its first go), is ridiculous. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't "scare quotes" in that context (at all), it was an acknowledgement that while they have called themselves a "party", in actual fact, no such entity has been registered and so there are no membership lists to join. St★lwart111 22:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting then that her hashtag is #Dalton4Change, not #DaltonYourCountryParty or #DaltonCountryPartyofAustralia. Most of the local news clippings she's posted to her Facebook page call her independent candidate and don't mention this group. She does not meet the Wikipedia politician criteria to have an article about her, so there are still no real inbound links to this article from other articles. I can be sympathetic to the cause without believing the entity is worthy of an article. --Scott Davis Talk 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This group has actually been fairly unusual in the way they've endorsed candidates - they've been more of a "we like this person and think you should vote for them" rather than "this person is running on our ticket" with a few, Dalton included. See here, and here (where it's called "Country Party branded"). The Cyclists Party actually also endorsed both Dalton and Mailler (clearly after negotiations - and called them "independents" while the upper house ticket was "Country Party"). Funnell here calls himself very clearly an "independent"; Dalton has also described herself as a "Country Party-aligned independent". This is in contrast to other unregistered parties like the Socialist Equality Party or even the tiny non-notable Communist League. In this case I think it's far from certain whether Dalton and Funnell are even members of the Country Party. Frickeg (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB talk 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content is certainty newsworthy so I would recommend the editors who made the article look at making an article on WikiNews about the party and it would be a lot more appropriate, as for an Enyclapedic entry? I think it misses the mark (today at least) for that notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until such time as a member is elected, it is a non entity. Drs002 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. This is, plain and simple, the sort of material that any encyclopedia pretending to be the "sum of human knowledge" should include. File this argument under the banner of our policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia) if you will. Think about it though — I'm right. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, I've always appreciated your point of view here and I think you do great work on a lot of minor political parties (and pretty much everything you write I would keep). And I think your goal with this philosophy is laudable, but I just don't think it's practical. I mean, how do you define a "party"? Is it the joke group formed by twenty-five uni students - which has membership lists and a whole (satirical) constitution, and runs candidates for the student union? Is it the loose groupings that register to run for local council? Is it the guy sitting in his basement who swears he has at least a hundred members - or at least, he has emails from people who want to join, and that counts (and then, under this approach, he gets an article too)? Consider this a question from someone who is genuinely curious about how this proposed approach would work. Frickeg (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The opinions based on WP:V are compelling, and mandate deletion. Most or all "keep" opinions make the argument that, as one editor puts it: "Something happened. Something notable. What - there is no consensus". This line of argument ignores that notability is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for inclusion. If we cannot even tell from reliable sources what it is that happened, then there is no verifiable basis for anything resembling a coherent article. WP:V being a core policy, arguments at odds with it must be discounted, leaving me to find a consensus to delete the article. That does of course not prevent recreation if somebody does manage to find a new reliable source that tells us what kind of natural disaster, if any, happened in 1341 in India.  Sandstein  19:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India Earthquake of 1341

India Earthquake of 1341 (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)

Misinformation. We cannot build articles on flimsy sources such as (some of) these. Some sources presented here portray a flood, and not an earthquake. A quote from this article states that "The natural dam at Bhoothathankettu (old Bhoothathankettu), is a result of either an earthquake or huge land slide in one of these two historically recorded floods".

So sounds like there's a good chance that a significant flood occurred but there is speculation about a landslide or an earthquake. We shouldn't construct articles on uncertainty. Dawnseeker2000 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is a victim of poor content infastructure. right now we have Geography of India which has no information about earthquakes (I'm not geologist but earthquakes seem notable to the field) instead we have an isolated List of earthquakes in India that is just going to incubate stub after stub instead of giving us a good article. I vote delete this article and add a section to Geology of India for earthquake information that can spin out to its own article if it gains sufficient material. but the current setup of just a list is going to generate stubs like this all the time. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...but only if - I'm always uncomfortable using blogs as the source for any information (ref 2). Finding sources in English for an event so long ago is difficult. I'm happy with reference 5 with establishing notability, but since it not what is probably considered a scholarly source, the article needs a few more of these. I would suggest that we not rush to delete this and allow time for the author to come up with more references. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  17:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response – Reference 5 discusses the flood of 1341. We can't keep this article as it is and hope for a better source (because there aren't any). We should go with the most trustworthy source that's in the article (I've added formatting):
Rajendran, C. P.; John, B.; Sreekumari, K.; Rajendran, K. (2009), "Reassessing the earthquake hazard in Kerala based on the historical and current seismicity", Journal of the Geological Society of India, 73 (6), Geological Society of India: 786
Rajendran et al. discuss (page 786) that some of the supposed events in India's existing earthquake catalogs have not been "critically evaluated". The 2009 paper goes on to say that a "glaring example" of this is the "oft-quoted Malabar Coast earthquake of 1341" that an early (1900) study of seismicity in India declared a "severe earthquake" and that an even earlier study (1846) deemed the 1341 event to be a "large storm". The paper's authors then state that "critical evaluation of the available data suggests that the 1341 event was not an earthquake but a storm..." and that "we have obtained independent evidence of flooding in the Bharathapuzha River basin that occurred sometime between A.D. 1269 and 1396"... "this probably represents the 1341 flood.. a severe event...". This paper does not provide evidence of an earthquake and cannot be used to support the existence of such an event. Dawnseeker2000 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As nominator, I don't think we exist to propagate uncertainty. We have an existing article on the municipality of Kodungallur that states it was either a flood or an earthquake. I think that's about all we need. We can't have dedicated articles on possibly or maybe. Since we have several reliable sources that states that this was more likely a flood than an earthquake, I've pinged the people at WikiProject Meteorology. It might be helpful to see what they have to say about this.

These sources support a storm :

Here are several sources that support the existence of an earthquake, but I would never use sources like these to support an article. We would need something far more reliable to support a WP article. The book source mentions an earthquake in 1341, but doesn't elaborate. I am doubtful of its reliability and the author has gone out on a limb. The whole book isn't available on Google Books so unable to verify his sources, if any. The newspaper's statements are dubious as well.

These sources support an earthquake:

I think what's going on with these two sources are the effects of oral tradition and storytelling; not science. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: even if I was convinced (which I am not) there is adequate sourcing to establish some natural disaster happened in 1341, and sources differed on which it was; then, the article would need to show that controversy, and prove that it was notable. Said otherwise: a flood might be WP material, an earthquake might be WP material, and a discussion about what happened (flood or earthquake) could be WP material, but an unspecified event with no discussion is not WP material because nothing could be verified. Tigraan (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Undecided after Piotrus' comment, see below.Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it is possible that the article needs to be renamed, because it is not 100% clear what exactly happened, the event is notable, and we have multiple reliable sources. We have (1) The Rough Guide to Kerala, which talks about a flood (which could be caused by a storm or an earthquatek); (2) "A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris", which again talks about a flood; (3)"Kerala's proneness to earthquakes", which talks about an earthquake; (4)Geology, Environment, and Society, which lists the earthquake in a list; (5) Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, which discusses the possibility of an earthquake; (6) The Face of the Earth, which discusses the earthquake briefly; and (7) Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society, which discusses the appearance of the island of Vaypi (while an earthquake is not expressly mentioned as the cause, the discussion occurs in a footnote about an incident in the Azores where 18 islands appeared after an earthquake). Also, based on references from other works, it appears that one of the catalogs of earthquakes, authored by S.K. Guha, et al., may include the 1341 earthquake (quite a few books and publication refer to a catalog of Indian earthquakes, authored by Guha, et al., that begins in 1341). I have been unable to find an online version of the catalog of earthquakes, but there are hard copy versions of the catalogs. Unfortunately, I have been unable to determine which edition (if any) the 1341 earthquake is referenced in. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response – I think "discuss" isn't the right word. None of these sources talk about the event in any detail. They can't (and neither can we). What would the section headings of our article be? The Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India link provided above underscores my earlier point about this really being about tradition. What we would really need for an article are several densely-packed sources that are focused on this event and nothing else. That is what's needed to develop any sort of useful or meaningful WP article. Stubs don't really work around here, and that's all we'll have with the sources that have been presented; several sentences at most. If there was more to be said, it would have been done already. The existing (couple of sentences) at Kodungallur is what I imagine our "article" would look like. Dawnseeker2000 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just because it cannot be expanded beyond a stub does not mean it should be deleted. We've pretty much solved the uncertainty problem, and now your issue is that "stubs don't really work around here", so we should delete it. It's a notable event; we can source it with reliable sources. I'm unaware of any guidelines or policies that say there's a minimum word requirement to keep an article. And there potentially is more to say. As I noted, there are potentially hard copy sources that could be used to further expand the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are no guidelines that say stubs are to be avoided, but its preferable to have well-developed and substantial articles. We have content on this event in the encyclopedia right now – I think the wording at Kodungallur covers it adequately. What we've established with the sources that we have right now is that no one is certain what happened in 1341, but that there was probably a flood. The best source that we have (that has several paragraphs detailing the lack of knowledge about that event) says an earthquake didn't occur. Writing about an earthquake is out, so what do we have left? Really not much, and that is what our article would be left with. I just don't think it's a good idea to create an article on an event that is not well-established. Look at this quote from the one journal article: "We have obtained independent evidence of flooding in the Bharathapuzha River basin that occurred sometime between A.D. 1269 and 1396 (Table 1A). This probably represents the 1341 flood.. a severe event that probably affected many river basins of Kerala." Notice what's written twice in this sentence? Probably. We shouldn't do this article. Dawnseeker2000 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it was probably a flood and not an earthquake. There are a lot of sources that talk about an earthquake. I don't understand why writing about an earthquake "is out". You're right about the journal article; we probably shouldn't use it, because it doesn't really say anything about the 1341 earthquake or 1341 at all (so using that as a source would be original research). But we have, as I pointed out in my original !vote, a number of sources that confirm an earthquake. We can use those, because they don't say anything about just "probably". The vast majority of sources about this event talk about an earthquake. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to "I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it was probably a flood and not an earthquake." – It's the journal article. I'd prefer if we didn't create an article on a flood and I'll be really relieved if we don't say there was an earthquake. I'm sticking with the source that I trust (the journal article). I'd also prefer to not do an article on a flood because the sources that have been presented are not strong enough. WP needs to not breed or proliferate uncertainty. We need very strong sources to build articles (there's no reason not to). We're just lacking in that respect with this one. I'll say it again: we already have about as much as there is to say in the Kodungallur article. Let's delete this thing and be done with it. Dawnseeker2000 05:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why trust that source as definitively correct above all the other sources? I get that you trust the journal article, but why don't you trust any of the other sources? And it's really not true that we've said all there is to say. We know there are potentially other non-Internet sources out that should be explored to expand the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at these one by one
  • The Rough Guide to Kerala – The Rough Guides are not an authoritative source for meteorological events.
  • "Kerala's proneness to earthquakes" – This newspaper article discusses the supposed earthquake, which is disputed, so we're not going to write a dedicated article on it. So, quoting from this newspaper article, "earthquakes which had hit the State right from 1341 A.D. when the Vypeen Island which did not exist before 1341 and was thrown up from the sea after a severe earthquake measuring 5.7 on the Richter scale". Pretty astonishing claim. I'd never use that as a source for an event and I'd question anyone who did.
  • The Face of the Earth - Quoting the tidbit from this book, "As a matter of fact it is a mass of marine sediment which was driven into its present position during an earthquake in 1341". Really. Sounds like he's desperately trying to convince the reader, and again, there's just no detail. I would never use a source that uses that kind of language.
  • Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society – Here we go. Listen to this author, who is speaking about his source, "...I have not considered the description specific enough for the text, but see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the fact: –"The island of Vaypi, on the north side of Cochin, rose from out the sea in the year 1341..." Nope, can't use it.

So I think it all comes down to an editors (and Wikipedia's) minimum standards for sources. I prefer to use sources that cannot be questioned because they're written by authoritative agencies or authors. Like I said, there's no reason not to. Dawnseeker2000 19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But your preference seems to be higher than Wikipedia's guidelines. There is no requirement for many of the restrictions that you are trying to place. We don't need only meteorologists talking about flood events. Many meteorological articles use sources written by journalists, rather than meteorologists; to say that we should only use articles written by scientists may be the standard you use in adding sources and information to articles, but that does not translate into a reason to delete this article. I'm not sure why you wouldn't use the third source and would question anybody who did. Your logic here seems circular: The event that happened was disputed because we do not have any reliable sources that definitely say what happened, so any sources that definitely say what happened must not be reliable, and we can't use it. On the fourth bullet point, I agree; it's not enough to support an article alone; however, it can be used as an additional source to support what happened. There is nothing in WP:RS that precludes the fifth source; it provides an historical context. Your logic on the sixth source is, again, circular. You don't want to use that source because you distrust it for some reason, but there's really no legitimate reason to distrust that source. I also see no issue with the last bullet point's source. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a decent standard for quality of sources. Regardless of the perceived quality of these sources, just what exactly is this stub going to say with what we've got? The process, by the way, should be to locate a great source, then write the article. Writing an article with the hope that someone, somewhere will come along and rescue it with a proper source is backwards. It's fine to use journalists as sources for modern events with dozens or hundreds of sources, but we need scientists take on things for events that are in question as to whether they took place at all. I really didn't intend to spend so much effort on this thing, and I really didn't think I'd be shooting myself in the foot by asking at the WikiProject talk page. If you want to be responsible for writing crap, go ahead. My stance is still delete. Just don't say earthquake in your article. Dawnseeker2000 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept, I'll expand it the best I can (but I'm not going to do that if it's just going to get deleted). The bolded part may be your standards, but that's not grounded in any WP policy or guideline. And I don't know how you've shot yourself in the foot by asking the Meteorology WP to come here; by coming here and engaging in the discussion, we've been able to establish that there are more sources that discuss the event than originally thought. That's the purpose of an AFD—to determine if an article should be deleted, after reviewing all of the information available and the pros and cons. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a plausible option, too, if there is enough to write about. I would not be a fan of a "X says, Y says, Z says" article, but I cannot really quote a guideline against that. Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Forlandsaas

Daniel Forlandsaas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was that Mr. Forlandsaas is Not a professional footballer. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. In any case, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - his name is Førlandsås. Anyway, appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. AlbinoFerret 18:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep *Neutral I work with the webmaster of his personal website. There has been guit many hits to his website in the search engine over the past years where his name + wikipedia has been searched for. I am aware he has not played in the biggest leagues in the world yet, but I seen pages of other similar footballers here - some them might have been deleted, but I dont think all of them.

I am very interested in football, I do know that you can play and earn a living of football in many lower leagues in among other countries like England, Spain, Italy, Germany etc. Lower then 3rd and 4th league. He has had a very international career from Australia - Spain doing it. But yes, like a normal job not as a millionaire I suppose. There are many TV interviews / reports etc on him on his YouTube channel for example, but I did not want to add personal website links and references to his Wiki page. I have not been editing on Wiki for some years, forgot my old log in details. So it might look a little messy at the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinMarch18 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 22:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Blame a Girl for Trying

Can't Blame a Girl for Trying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, no evidence that this EP or the single ever charted The Banner talk 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - First of all, anyone can use any available user name. Second, assuming that Sabrina Carpenter is not notable, this discussion needs to take place at an AFD for her. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see that wrong, Jax, the notability of the singer is not of any influence on the notability of the song. That are to separate discussions. The Banner talk 04:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If found non-notable, alternative to deletion is to redirect to singer. Did this definitely not chart anywhere? Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I do not disagree that the notability of the song and the notability of the artist are two separate discussions. However, per WP:NSONG, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song". Per WP:NALBUM, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". Merging implies a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. sources win AFDs - or lack thereof... Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn (scripting language)

Pawn (scripting language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any news source coverage, only covered on gaming forums and the creators website. ― Padenton|✉   21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was covered in Dr. Dobbs, under it's previous name: http://www.drdobbs.com/the-small-scripting-language/184411074 Caroliano (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I quickly found those two links. I will post more references latter, as they don't seem sufficient. But searching "small" on google will probably be quite difficult. Caroliano (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back. First, another reliable third party source, but not as in depth as the drdobbs article:
  • Pawn is described (a section with 3 paragraphs) in Game Engine Architecture, Second Edition by by Jason Gregory, on page 962, as one of the commonly used scripting languages for games. One can get the page via google books. Amazon Link.
  • I don't know if a moderately big and notable open source project counts as a reliable source, but: Embryo interprets a subset of Small and is used in Enlightenment_(software). This can also be confirmed by checking it is a package which e17 depends on all major Linux distros.
Now, more questionable evidence for notability:
That is what I could find, but I'm not on the gamming modding community. Caroliano (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:: please look at the article again. I included some of the sources I listed above in the discussion, among other additions. Caroliano (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the almost 500 repositories listed under SourcePawn, another recognized language by Github, that I linked in my vote. Caroliano (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 01:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nee preme naa pranam

Nee preme naa pranam (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 film-as well as too soon. Kind of looks like a brief advertisement with no major refs even. Wgolf (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ted Haggard#Scandal and removal from job. Deryck C. 06:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jones (personal trainer)

AfDs for this article:
Mike Jones (personal trainer) (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)

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Jones was completely unknown until he became involved with the Ted Haggard sex scandal. He's been non-notable since then. He published a book about the scandal that was widely ignored (#1.3 million currently at Amazon) and won't help him pass WP:AUTHOR. Was in AfD once, but nobody even mentioned BLP1E. Possibly redirect the name to the article on Haggard. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mangoe. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 06:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midreshet Yeud

Midreshet Yeud (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 program does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. It is possible that sources may exist in another language, so I am bringing this to the AfD noticeboard rather than proposing deletion for higher visibility. Please leave me a message on my talk page should appropriate sourcing be located. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only "keep" opinion refers to "common sense". That is unfortunately not a concept referenced in WP:N, which calls for sources instead.  Sandstein  19:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Eivind Hall

AfDs for this article:
William Eivind 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)

Extremely dubious notability, sources seem to indicate notability of the company, rather than of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 and redirect to Michael Connelly#Terry McCaleb. Nakon 22:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry McCaleb

Terry McCaleb (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)

Fictional character long tagged for notability Wgolf (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tagged in 2009, only reference is to IMDB, time for this one to go. AlbinoFerret 18:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did find at least one critical analysis of the character (as portrayed in film), but it's arguably not the most reliable source: a work submitted for an English B.S. (not graduate degree): Arifin, Khoirudin Listiawan. Personality In Terry Mccaleb, The Major Character Of Blood Work Movie: A Psychoanalitic Approach. Diss. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 2014. (pdf). If a peer-reviewed or otherwise published version of the dissertation can be found, that would help satisfy WP:GNG, but we'd still need multiple sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge then redirect to Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. While there may be significant coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Per the policies of subjects notable only for one event, the requirements for long term historical perspective, Wikipedia is not a memorial and it's in the news the level of coverage is immaterial in the case of a low profile individual outside of that one event. This is further reinforced by the notability guideline, which states that "notability is not temporary." Furthermore there are significant elements of ostensible discussion of its nominal subject involved in the conflation with the coverage of Avijit Roy, Ahmed Rajib Haider and the overall context of attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. As Consensus indicates that the topic should not be removed from the encyclopedia, it should instead be merged and redirected as above. Note that this is without prejudice to a subsequent split or alternative redirect should consensus determine such an action desirable.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Washiqur Rahman Babu

Washiqur Rahman Babu (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 individual seems to have no significance except for being the victim of a crime. He does not seem to meet the notability criteria in WP:N/CA or WP:BLP1E. While there was a previous blogger killed recently under similar circumstances (Avijit Roy), he was notable for more than simply his murder. Mamyles (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added content to Avijit's article and supported it on ITN, but this guy seems to have no books, and no criticism of the government. Political repression of cyber-dissidents is interesting but this guy seems unremarkable. CPJ and RSF1 RSF2 have coverage, but he seems to have no independent publications of his own. Might be merged if low coverage. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, only two articles on Google News in the last week, suggesting a burst of coverage, and a lack of enduring coverage. Conviction/Sentencing could create more coverage, but it still seems like it isn't enduring, and much coverage is tangential, dealing with the larger issue of press freedom rather than his life. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or consider an article about the attacks against progressives in Bangladesh which would include other related problems lke Avijit Roy. By itself, despite the wide coverage, this is a failure of WP:BLP1E and considering the event standalone, fails WP:NEVENT. But there is clearly a larger problem with stuff like this happening in that country, and so it fully makes sense to have an article about it that would also include this person's murder. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Hello I think you might want to take a look at this thread again now after almost two weeks. There has been more events and coverage, in particular:
  1. The first two suspects put on remand, (31 March)
  2. Details about the first two suspects, (1 April)
  3. An opinion article criticising the current bail/other system (3 April; in this background)
  4. Protesters telling the govt. to take away funding from madrasas with terror links (4 April; arrestees were madrasa students)
  5. New details about militant-training flat (4 April; the third assailant is also named here),
  6. A new link to the Avijit Roy murder (5 April) and lastly
  7. The two arrestees were put on remand again. (10 April; this also shows how important the murder is as this small information made it into the news.)
I believe this addresses the WP:NEVENT concern and I have also addressed the WP:BLP1E concern in my lengthy argument below. Please reply with what you think. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All these point away from any notability about the person and instead about the general attitude/situation of people using physical violence to quell free speech. This still fails WP:BLP1E. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the general feeling that is given when reading these articles, this seems more personalised. Physical violence against free speech isn't at all commonplace here in Bangladesh for that to be a general violence against that, this has been shown to be the work of a smaller group. Almost all of the articles there are specific to Oyasiqur or Avijit as well and not written in a general sense of oppression. But anyway, please consider my quotes about WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E below in this discussion. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 06:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was some possibility of enduring coverage, but it looks like it happened in a burst. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let the article improve. I agree that we might end up merging this article at some point, but I don't think there is anything served by a headlong rush to do that. Let the coverage collect a bit and we can revisit in a few weeks. --Krelnik (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryce Carmony: Hello I think you may want to see above as I have listed more subsequent events that have transpired in the last two weeks in my reply to Masem. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let the article improve (changed vote below to Merge to Avijit Roy). It is particularly notable that the transliteration of this man's name varies considerably, and that he used pseudonyms in his writings, so it has not been immediately clear how great his contribution was in life. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sminthopsis84: @Gurumoorthy Poochandhai: The quality or length of the article is not being questioned here. What is being discussed is whether or not this individual is notable enough for his own article. Improvements to the article would not change the subject's notability. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamyles: I disagree - improving the article could radically change the subjects notability. What if he (under another pseudonym) had written some particularly notable/controversial posts, and this has not come out in the news yet? I really think it doesn't hurt to wait a little while and revisit. --Krelnik (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krelnik: With all due respect, that argument just doesn't work. It's like saying writing an article about you or me could be notable because it's possible that one of us will become famous. Notability is now - we don't write articles about people who may become notable in the future. Mamyles (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? Because the article hasn't been fleshed out, it may appear that he wasn't notable, when in fact he might have been. He may turn out to be notable when we find out more about what he did in his life. Writing is hard, and wikipedians are being discouraged on so many fronts. Please don't delete drafts before they have a chance to become good articles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamyles: Ditto Sminthopsis84 - it's not about future, it's about giving those writing the article a chance to prove his notability. --Krelnik (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS means Wikipedia looks for enduring coverage, not a burst of coverage in one go. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valentinejoesmith: A light should be kept on the subject of violence against bloggers in Bangladesh, certainly. Feel free to create an article about that, as User:Ctg4Rahat suggested. However, as this individual is not notable for any reason besides his manner of death, an article dedicated to him is not warranted. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: we have international press attention (plenty of reliable sources) focusing on this incident. It may be that this article would be better titled "Murder of Washiqur Rahman Babu" or something of that nature, but I think that it deserves a place here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Per WP:INTHENEWS, news coverage does not alone indicate notability. Every murder victim gets news coverage, but only murder victims that are notable for some other reason get articles. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E means notability can't come from a single event, there needs to be ongoing coverage. WP:COATRACK means that articles about one thing can't mostly be about another thing. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK means articles about one thing shouldn't mostly be about another thing. List of journalists and bloggers killed in Bangladesh is a better possibility.-- Aronzak (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posit, this new article be named either Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh or Atheism in Bangladesh rather than Attacks on bloggers in Bangladesh, because: this attacks are targeted ONLY towards atheists and not towards totality of blogger communities. Furthermore, thought they are often tagged as blogger, their activities in Facebook and other media and real life are also subject. They are being attacked not because they blog, rather because they are atheists.
N.B.: Merging Babu with Roy's article won't make much sense. ~ nafSadh did say 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahmed Rajib Haider and Asif Mohiuddin have documented involvement in the Shahbag protests and the 2013 Bengali blog blackout. Note that USA Today in 2013 stated

    Hifazat-e-Islam members targeted bloggers who they say are atheists... The bloggers, who deny they are atheists, are seeking capital punishment for those found guilty of war crimes during the nation's 1971 independence war against Pakistan

    - CPJ doesn't care whether a blogger killed for their writing is an atheist, a freethinker, a secularist or a Muslim who just criticised Islamists. Imran H Sarker's comment that he was not killed because of widespread exposure means this article should be merged, the other articles should just be summarised.-- Aronzak (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't dictated by CPJ. And the subject in question here is not bloggers, but are atheists. Babu wasn't targeted even for being a blogger, but for hist Facebook comments. Attacks are made to these victims regardless of their medium of expression and due to their belief (or non-belief). However, whether the new article be named ...bloggers... or ...atheists... is a question to be discussed in AfC. ~ nafSadh did say 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mr. Washiqur's murder has been covered worldwide, yes. But however this event may or may not be separate from the attack on Mr. Avijit. Many news sources has drawn the parallel to these murders, sure. But altogether since it also has unique details and elements of its own, such as the scenes of the murder, the circumstances surrounding the murder (such as the the very very important difference that the perpetrators were caught this time), and other factors such as uncertainties in the upcoming future such as the criminal lawsuit that will follow since the murderers have been arrested. I don't think the lawsuit for this murder will be appropriate for any other article, therefore I oppose the deletion. Now I will quote the policies.
    • For notability as an event:
      1. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The coverage I believe is likely to be continuous in the national news, similar to how Mr. Avijit's was. Mr. Avijit's family were in the news many times after Mr. Avijit's death. Mrs. Avijit even published an article in The Daily Star. There's nothing to say it won't happen again in this case.
      2. WP:DIVERSE: Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. The murder has been reported worldwide but most of the reports were published in around 30th March when they didn't have that many details on hand.
      3. WP:DEPTH: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.}} As above, they have had recurring coverage from our national sources. Please see my references below for evidence of this.
    • For notability as a person:
      1. WP:VICTIM: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. [...]
        Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
        The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
      In this instance, Mr. Washiqur's murder large amount of sources that covered the event has centered around Mr. Washiqur's role as a blogger and this is consistent with this policy. I am also of the understanding that Mr. Washiqur's murder is notable and unique in itself as I have written in my first paragraph. I have also quoted the relevant policies for the historical significance of this event above.
      1. WP:BLP1E: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals. As Mr.WP:BIO1E applies but not the other policy WP:BLP1E, please see below.
      2. WP:BIO1E: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. The significance of the entire event revolves around Mr. Washiqur's role, as in WP:VICTIM. So Mr. Washiqur's role and arguments for an article as a biography should be given weight due to these arguments. An article about the event cannot contain many details about his life so I am of the understanding that a biography is better fitting.
    • More in-depth national references:
  1. Another blogger stabbed to death in Tejgaon. The Daily Star. 30 March 2015.
  2. Blogger Oyasiqur buried at Lakshmipur village. New Age BD. 31 March 2015. ("Tipu Sultan, the father, has been in extreme pain and frequently being fainted since he received the death news of his son, our correspondent reported. His wife died 20 years ago.")
  3. Oyasiqur murder suspects on 8-day remand. The Daily Star. 3 April 2015. (Relevant to the coming lawsuit I was talking about.)
  4. Murders of bloggers worry UN, US. The Daily Star. 3 April 2015. (Great condemnations from many organisations, e.g. the IHEU on this murder.)
  5. EU urges unity against violent extremism in Bangladesh. The Daily Star. 3 April 2015.
  6. Dangerous desensitisation. The Daily Star. 3 April 2015. (This article writes about this specific murder.)
  7. Ansarullah planning silent assassination squads. Dhaka Tribune. (The criminal investigation.)
  8. Blogger Oyasiqur's killing protested in Barisal. Dhaka Tribune. (Protests in Bangladesh.)
  9. Oyasiqur murder protested in Kolkata. Dhaka Tribune. (More protests in India.)
– Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 09:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahiyan8: Thanks for the well laid out comments. English language articles in the last 24 hours bring news coverage closer to being meaningful. The Opinion piece is good. I'm still concerned about BLP1E - this guy didn't seem to publish much independently before his death - no books unlike Avijit Roy, and his writing hasn't been involved in the Shahbag protests, unlike Haider. Imran H Sarker states he did not have widespread exposure, and Tahmima Anam wrote in a New York Times opinion piece

Mr. Rahman, the latest victim, was the quietest of the three. He was not particularly educated. He had not, as Mr. Roy had, published books and articles. He mostly wrote posts on Facebook. Why was he targeted? Why, among all the other bloggers, was his name the one that came up?

A lot of coverage conflates him with Avijit Roy and Ahmed Rajib Haider (as Tahmima Anam's article does) - still leading to the issue of coatrack. I'd say try and improve this article over the next 24 hours.-- Aronzak (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aronzak: Please see the edit that I have made addressing your concerns about WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahiyan8: thanks for that, just looked on Google news and there are new sources linking the killers of this guy to the killers of Avijit ([8] [9] [10]). I was concerned about WP:SYNTH (combining two sources that don't reference each other to make a claim that isn't made). If the sources themselves explicitly link the killing of the two individuals, and suggest that they are both done by related groups, then COATRACK isn't an issue. I added lines to Avijit Roy about how

International organisations, including Human Rights Watch,[32] Amnesty International,[33] Reporters without Borders[34] and the Committee to Protect Journalists[35] condemned the imprisonment of bloggers and the climate of fear for journalists

back in 2013. For a decent article, there need to be good sources linking his death to the surrounding issue of press freedom. CPJ

The official harassment of journalists in Bangladesh comes as other journalists, especially bloggers, have come under threat from other quarters. In the past five weeks, two bloggers were hacked to death in public. In late February, assailants killed American blogger Avijit Roy and injured his wife as they were leaving a book fair, while visiting the country. On Monday, three assailants attacked and killed blogger Washiqur Rahman Babu.

Ideally, there should be a few high quality English language sources that clearly link his death not just to Avijit Roy, but the wider issue of press freedom in Bangladesh. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: I have a small but very important comment that many people here are only considering the information written in the article. I am absolutely sure that there are atleast 50 news articles from atleast 5 large english news sources in the nation about the murder alone. His murder has been covered in atleast ten other countries as well. If this does not count as basic notability then I don't know what does. The article isn't expanded well enough. The criminal lawsuit or proceedings or so forth is not covered at all! There is no mention of Masum or any other people important in this murder. I please suggest that people atleast search in google for something like Oyasiqur murder site:thedailystar.net (a very good Bangladeshi english newspaper). This also only covers the english news sources and not the other 20 Bangla national sources... I am absolutely sure his murder was in the headlines too in most of the newspapers when this happened. Please remember this before only considering the small amount of information present in the article, there's a very problematic shortage of Bangladeshi editors. I think people are discouraged to expand the article as well since it's under the deletion discussion. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 11:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there significant coverage on Oyasiqur, which is not a news of the murder? ~ nafSadh did say 13:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nafsadh: I don't think so really. The earliest references that I can find are to his murder. Although I don't believe there was any coverage on Mr. Roy before either. I don't have any strong arguments for a biography but I feel very opposed to a merge as well. Avijit's and Oyasiqur's murders were mostly the same in characteristics but this is all complicated by the connection of the two murders ([11]) so it's not apparently clear where to host the discussion of the organisers of the attack as more details appear. Each murder also had their own circumstances, protests, news, opinions and so on... – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, how does he pass WP:ANYBIO? He should be redirected to Attacks on ... in Bangladesh; per WP:ONEEVENT. You can interpret all these guidelines in whichever way you want; but these norms mean what the community think that means. So please, stop making the same argument against each votes posted here. This AfD is turning out to be your top edited page and also 8% of your total contribution to Wikipedia. Pardon me if I sound rude, but I think you need to learn a little about notability and coverage norms. 💎 nafSadh did say 04:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. [...]

@Longevitydude: Of course but the memorial policy states that above. After his murder, he's become known throughout the country so he is very notable! Okay this was a single event, but single events are often notable! I've made some arguments above which you might like to see about his notability as a person/event. I'm still arguing for a biography so I request that you see my last argument please. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 15:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Longevitydude: We can rename this to "The murder of Washiqur Rahman Babu" but the most important reasons to rename the article, rather than delete it and recreate it with the new name to delete an article already written, only to re-write it trying to obtain the same content about the murder is not necessary . Doing so would violate WP:CC-BY-SA which requires maintaining the list of contributors to the article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bangali Emperor, none cares about your useless comment. -- AHLM13 talk 16:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are canvassing, then people do care. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His murder is the single event which got media coverage, I see. Before this, no one apparently knew him. Based on the murder of a person, Wikipedia should not have an article. So many events occur everyday in each country which get media coverage for one/two day. Are we going to create separate articles for all those, on daily basis? Why not, if we can create article on Washiqur? -AsceticRosé 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AsceticRose: I see your concerns and views but I have to tell you that another article Avijit Roy was made after Mr. Roy was murdered. Roy's murder was without-question notable but yet he is not very notable at all. What I see had happened was that he had some slightly-notable things from the past which was 1. An award by this blogging competition and some ("well-received", but "well-received" post-mortem?) books. In itself the article would never have passed an AfD with Keep. But after the murder and the following significant western and national coverage I believe those small tidbits such as him as a writer passed as rationale for notability etc. The article was expanded and even put in the news in the main page! But what parallels are present here? Oyasiqur was murdered, he too received a lot of national and western coverage (atleast 30 different international sources including the UN, Reporters without Borders, etc.), he's become just as well-known as Mr. Roy as a "household name" in Bangladesh. But what this article has become hung up on is that Mr. Oyasiqur didn't have any of the immediate rationale such as books or so on as before. But should that count as un-notability? I don't believe so. Their notability comes from the press coverage subsequent to their deaths. I don't suppose that Mr. Oyasiqur's murder is really notable to foreigners except for Indians since you don't talk to your friends or colleagues about this murdered blogger; but if you're an educated Bangladeshi, then you'll have surely heard about this murder and you will want to find out about who this Oyasiqur person is and what happened. So where do you get this information? Wikipedia! – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahiyan8: My arguments above are not intended for this article only, but for all such cheap articles, be it Avijit Roy or any other. The present problem is that media coverage is a good physical yardstick to judge notability, but we are misusing media coverage as an ethical yardstick to justify a non-notable issue. Wikipedia is not a repository of all things that exist or happen. Just tell me what is actually notable about Washiqur except his murder? That he was a blogger? Is there any shortage of blogger on earth? That he was described as a "progressive thinker"? There are millions of progressive thinkers. How silly are the lines He paid tribute to the slain atheist in his Facebook profile page with the hashtag #iamavijit. It seems we really have nothing notable to say about Washiqur; so stuffing the page with items like this.
I'm pretty sure that such articles are created by certain users either to increase their page-creation count or to promote ideology they hold. The second one is very apparent here.
My concern is not with this page only, but all non-notable pages like this. They are not notable. We are making them notable, although this is not the Wikipedia guideline. I will not hesitate to say that we are making non-notable issues notable in a forceful manner. -AsceticRosé 00:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nahiyan8: Firstly WP:OTHER means that if you don't like other articles, that's not a reason not to delete this one. Worldwide Protests for Free Expression in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which Avijit was a co-ordinator) was created on 19 June 2013 - supported by the Center for Inquiry, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, American Atheists and Taslima Nasrin. Avijit was notable outside Bangladesh before he died, Oyasiqur is only notable outside Bangladesh after his death. His death is notable, but his writing online isn't, so I propose the article be merged into Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh which will cover his death, as well as attacks on Asif Mohiuddin, Avijit Roy, Ahmed Rajib Haider, Taslima Nasrin, Sunnyur Rahman and any others. Oyasiqur does not seem to have been noted for any involvement with protest movements like the Worldwide Protests for Free Expression in Bangladesh or 2013 Bengali blog blackout. His lack of publications, or notability during his life, means that the page should be merged, along with Sunnyur Rahman into Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh or some such article. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not a memorial for a victim of an ordinary crime but a description of an event which undermines freedom of expression in Bangladesh. For that reason it is a political crime and notable. Otto (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then make an article about the crime itself which can very well include the victim, but the victim in and of himself is not notable enough for his own stand-alone article. Longevitydude (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"an event" means WP:BLP1E - the event needs WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and this hasn't got it. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ: "per WP:GNG" is not a coherent argument in and of itself. WP:GNG, under the "Presumed" point, takes into account the numerous exceptions in WP:NOT. This would seem to fall under precedent exceptions to the GNG explained in WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT. Could you elaborate why this individual is particularly notable for more than just this single event? Mamyles (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep and rename to Murder of Washiqur Rahman Babu. Per Nahiyan8 and Pharaoh of the Wizards. As Otto says, it is a political crime and is notable.--Merchant of Asia (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked as sock of Bazaan. Ravensfire (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the Committee to Protect Journalists has written, the killings of bloggers is regarded by NGOs as the direct result of government restrictions on speech (imprisonment of bloggers) creating a culture of impunity towards attacks on bloggers and the media.
The vast majority of opinion pieces written about this guy's death were also about Avijit Roy. Many of the opinion pieces written about this man's death also mentioned Avijit Roy, and WP:COATRACK means that articles about one thing shouldn't primarily be about another thing. When the CPJ writes about Washiqur Rahman they mention Avijit Roy, Asif Mohiuddin, and Ahmed Rajib Haider. The only News article from the last week on Google News is AlJazeera coverage of Washiqur Rahman along with Avijit Roy. This doesn't meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - maintaining a separate article rather than just a subsection of Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh is not justified given the lack of endurance of news coverage.
The majority of articles treat this guy's death as one of a number of attacks, and I think it should just be merged into Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh, with a redirect. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 01:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healthpoint Ltd

Healthpoint Ltd (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, does not meet WP:CORP; was one of 16 winners of a local (Lancashire) business award in 2013 (see here). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Dare Ya

I Dare Ya (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)

TV show stub from 8 years ago. Sourced only to the network (a call for audience participation) and what seems to be an official website (which isn't working). "It was only shown for one season." Greykit (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Val Falvey, TD

Val Falvey, TD (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 stub. Only (possibly) independent reliable source appears to be this dating from before it was shown, part of which discusses another film. Greykit (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first is definitely not independent ("The show began airing on RTÉ"), the second is not reliable (it is a self-published blog) and the third one I am not sure (it also refers to a blog). --Greykit (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joy in the Hood

Joy in the Hood (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)

Stub about a show from 10 years ago. Sourced only to the Internet Movie Database. Has been tagged with "refimprove" for 9 years. Greykit (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke and Mirrors (TV series)

Smoke and Mirrors (TV 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)

Non-notable TV show from seven years ago sourced only to the network. No indication it is shown now. A Google search shows only this from the production company and the Wikipedia entry. Greykit (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Lee (Taiko)

Art Lee (Taiko) (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; perhaps someone with better linguistic skills can prove me wrong. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; time it was resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajah

Mahajah (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:NPLACE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. I added it's first ref but couldn't find more and not saying that source is a reliable source (and almost word for word this article, possible copyvio or mirror). I could find no valid redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a language link to ar.wikipedia. -Arb. (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CLC (band)

CLC (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Only one secondary source listed even approaches reliable; the rest are the usual kpop gossip/promo machine. This group first record was just released 3 days ago. They've only been on one TV show as a group and it was self-produced on their agency's own youtube channel. The user who created this article frequently creates articles for non-notable singers, albums, and songs. This is WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOO SOON, etc. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll expand the article however the reason why some sources are unreliable is because most sources that talk about Kpop are Korean and the only webpages who translate Kpop content are gossip news (like Allkpop) if you want I will include Korean news sites talking about them however it will be in Korean. The group are new but they will release more music so it would be useless to delete it now and in a few months someone has to create it again. (User:4minute lover (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2015‎ (UTC))
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Artist Soap

Urban Artist Soap (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article Street art doesn't have any information on Polish street art ( which is easy to find, a quick search brought up stories from Business Insider and CNN on the street art scene ) my recommendation is to delete this article, and put any wikiworthy information into the street art article, if enough builds up, spin out Street art in Poland and if that gets so crowded that we need a article just for soap. let's make it happen, as is I don't see any notability for this particular article ( couldn't find any 3rd party refs in a search ) and the wikilandscape doesn't support the idea either. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textbase

Textbase (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. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy G11 as political advertisement DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Blaney

Rachel Blaney (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 wiki politician standards. Wgolf (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the shortfalls in this page. I have resolved both concerns you mentioned, by inserting two citations and linking other pages to this page. Let me know if you see other problems. -GrahamHMay

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - she has done some important work in the past (independent of her candidacy), and is currently a very prominent member of our region (which I am from). People deserve to have a relatively impartial source to get information about where she comes from and what she stands for. Furthermore, if others have information to add, they deserve a forum to do so. I have populated the page with five references now, to demonstrate the point. -GrahamHMay

  • Delete per nom. Fails POLITICIAN, BIO, GNG, etc. No doubt a credit to her community, but Wikipedia is not here to provide a forum. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as being notable in an encyclopedic sense I couldn't find much in the way of 3rd party references to support the claim. The coverage from the article references is really temporary. Whenever there are elections happening good coverage is allways needed at Wikinews to synthesize multiple reports into a single narrative. but as far as encyclopedic? it doesn't meet that threshold for me. but who knows what the future holds, she may end up the president of Canada and be notable in the future but for today, delete. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Childs

Rob Childs (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 author, Fails WP:AUTHOR & WP:GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. After two close AFDs I'm opting for not relisting a second time and closing as no consensus. Instead of !voting, my own (admittedly quick) research using google.de indicate they very probably meet WP:BAND, and Michig's book sources pretty much clinched it §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Diamonds

AfDs for this article:
Funky Diamonds (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)

AfD involved only 2 people, BenLinus1214 and Gaff, so ended in no consensus. J04n and Fixer23 also looked into the group's notability at WP:Articles for deletion/Funky Diamonds (album). Dawn Bard tagged this for notability. Does have an article in 2 other languages, but I wasn't sure that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years, so it would be very good to finally get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Two major label albums, at least one of which was a hit in Japan it seems, some coverage here, here and here - could really do with German editors to bring the German WP article up to scratch as it seems probable that further coverage exists in German sources. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnail Singh (referee)

Jarnail Singh (referee) (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 see how football referees are inherently notable. Perhaps if he refereed English premier league which he hasn't. Sources provided aren't really third party as they're all football related. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the first Sikh to referee English football does not advance notability, so we now create an article for the first Jew to referee English football? LibStar (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
in a sport where the exclusion of non-white, non-English people has been to subject of much discussion, yes the first Sikh to referee is of great importance. To introduce the first Jew into this is merely irrelevant.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the lifetime award is not a notable award, in fact found no coverage of this award besides primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) - Really? Really??--Egghead06 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so by your logic then being an ambassador for the FA is of no importance either or maybe this is just another deletion discussion where nobody bothered to look for references!!?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added - refereed at international level.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that source reliable? It incorrectly says Singh was born in England. Also it is highly unusual for a referee to officiate an international game without ever refereeing in the highest national league. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a reliable source to say he was born in India? At the moment there is a deadlink which attempts to support him being born in India yet he is later described as "of Indian descent". Which is correct? Do you have a reliable source to support your view that it is unusual to ref at international level without refereeing at the highest national league level or is that your opinion? --Egghead06 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Egghead06. Obviously notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article itself still has a lack of high-quality references but there are a few details that have emerged since this article was nominated that lead me to think that the subject of the article might meet WP:GNG. I don't think the "lifetime achievement award" is a notable award in itself (and it is not an award bestowed by the FA, rather a promotional vehicle which was a joint venture organised by a company called "Inventive sports" and so of course some recipients are mentioned in newspapers, although I can't find any newspaper article that gives more than a passing mention to Singh's award; it does seem that there was more coverage of the 2013 awards than the inaugural 2012 event). I don't think it likely that Singh ever made it onto FIFA's men's referees list, also I don't think the friendly international game that he refereed in 2011 is likely to have been authorised as a tier 1 international match by FIFA. It does however appear that the FA have been keen to acknowledge his involvement and promote his profile, attempting to rectify diversity issues affecting English football. But, as I already said, there is hardly any newspaper coverage that has emerged to describe aspects, including any FA ambassador role, which is a still real problem here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked in here merely out of curiosity, knowing nothing about football. This is rather a nice, pretty well referenced, brief biography. It's a whole lot better than I expected. He has indeed received coverage of a somewhat substantial nature and dealing with a variety of aspects of his life to make all this into more than a scorecard. And regarding the (rhetorical) question about whether being the first Sikh refereee advances notability, then maybe in itself it doesn't. However, if sources write about the matter then indeed it does count. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. SmartSE (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard K. Diran

Richard K. Diran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also fails WP:CRIME. David.thompson.esq (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Might be notable in Burmese wikipedia but that's not up to us english speakers. Popish Plot (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Popish Plot: If it's notable on the Burmese Wikipedia, it would be notable here—it's perfecty acceptable to use non-English sources (some en.wp articles use nothing but). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. That Burmese sources are OK doesn't mean Burmese WP standards apply here. Notability on another wiki does not guarantee notability here. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there doesn't appear to be a Burmese page, so the point is moot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to retract my "agreed". Bottom line is I don't know. Popish Plot (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a strikethru of my comment above because I wanted to retract it. Popish Plot (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. fails WP:CRIME.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.154.165 (talk) [reply]
Subject has multiple claims to notability. But even in re: WP:CRIME, there is a claim that the case set a precedent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is probably true that he fails crime, but also true that it was a crime involving acknowledged expertise on Burma and its art. And that his core notability comes from that expertise, which went into those photos (book & exhibit). (Wait a sec while I polish up my crystal ball...) Those tribes really are vanishing, and the photos will gain in notability, historical and ethnographic importance in the years to come. There are more than enough RS articles to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Went back to do a light clean-up; realized there are whole articles about him in reliable publications. An entire chapter in a book about colorful Gaijin hanging out in Asian places. A sourced claim to have opened (with his Japanese wife) the first Robatayaki restaurant in the United States. And, tellingly, a plausible-looking claim that the legal case involving the ancient Buddah in which he was the art dealer set a U.S. precedent. Why are we talking about deleting this? It certainly needs improvement. But I think a second look will persuade any editor that it is a KEEP. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the article again, and I still vote 'delete.' There are a lot of pages about living people who are of borderline notability, as a very random example, Quint Studer came to my attention recently. I think Wikipedia would do just fine without pages on such people. But if someone wants to put together a trivial page about a trivial person, so what? However, I think that where the person is living, only borderline notable, and most of the article discusses the subject's alleged criminality, one should err on the side of caution and delete. Any time an article contains negative information about a living person there is a small but non-zero risk of liability to Wikipedia and even the individual editors of the page. So, a question to ask is, Why does Wikipedia need a page about this person? I can't think of a reason. He wrote a book, he pled guilty to a crime, he 'relinquished a claim' in an artifact. The child porn conviction would never justify a page by itself, or Wikipedia would turn in a giant sex crimes registry. To specifically address whether the addition of the Buddha stuff establishes his notability, I think it goes more to establishing that the allegedly stolen statue was notable than the alleged thief. So it's really just back to the book. Is this guy notable simply for having written a book? I don't think so. And, the addition of the Buddha material adds risk that the stuff about child porn does not. The article implies that this guy stole the statue, and maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but he never pled guilty or was convicted of anything, and so there is no slam-dunk defense to a charge of libel. Unlike someone like Bill Cosby, whose page includes stuff about unproved accusations, this subject is probably not a 'public figure' per US libel law, and it would be a lot easier for him to sue us, than it would be for Cosby. The article is dancing on the border of accusation, and therefore potential libel. The addition does not establish notability. Therefore, delete. David.thompson.esq (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book/photos pass WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). Would it be appropriate to remove the Buddha material? E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, E.M.Gregory the WP:AUTHOR tells us this is the standard; an author is notable if:
             1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
             2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
             3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or    
                  feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
             4.  The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within   
                  the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
So, based on what I've seen written in the article and talk, it is possible he fits 2, 3 or 4. There's no real citation in the article today that fits 1. But, the article says that his work is significant in a way that might match 2-4. So, if there is enough properly-cited stuff that fits these criteria, then yes, he is a notable author. If he is a notable author, then in my opinion Wikipedia can also say that he pled guilty to child porn charges. Whether or not he is a notable author, I think Wikipedia should not repeat accusations that he stole a buddha if it is not clear that those accusations would be 100% seen as non-libel by a U.S. court. So, to the extent that other people think his alleged Buddha-stealing is the font of his notability, there should be no article. If there is an article, it should either not mention the buddha-stealing, or it should limit itself EXCLUSIVELY to what no rational person could deny about the Buddha-stealing. Among other things this means that if he is not notable but for the stolen Buddha, then he is not notable. In my opinion, which is also my legal opinion: don't publish the Buddha stuff, you can publish the child porn and book publishing stuff, and no page should exist unless the book alone renders him memorable. David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diran is just the sort of figure that it is especially useful for Wikipedia to cover. While I see WP:AUTHOR as a marginal pass, I am firmly persuaded that he passes WP:GNG. The closer you look, the more you find. There are articles about him stretching over 6 decades (I didn't add the San Mateo's paper's coverage of his high school days), but he graduated in 1968 and was part of a generation that headed to the Asia in search of... who knows what. Even the book reviews - which praise the book - tend to focus a lot of attention on his colorful life. I just added a reference to is presence on the Bangkok party scene ~1980 from an Andy McCoy autobiography.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bangkok party scene? You can't be serious. I was part of the Manila party scene in the 90's and there's no article about me (thank God). At this point you and I seem to be the only ones discussing this. I am unpersuaded by your arguments -- less persuaded, in fact, with each addition to the article, which is turning into a grab-bag of random facts about a guy, who is just some guy that wrote a book. However, since consensus is literally impossible when there are only two people discussing, I think you and I can quit discussing until (and if) others weigh in. Since you seem to be very much in favor of keeping the article, maybe by the time others weigh in you can have turned it into something that undeniably meets the criteria. My vote, for what it's worth, is delete. David.thompson.esq (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@David.thompson.esq: If the article seems to imply that he stole it, is there a wording tweak possible to clarify that that is not being claimed here? It used to say that he smuggled the statue - which I believe the sources say he admitted to doing; does that help to clarify that the involvement of the FBI and govt of Myanmar are related to smuggling the statue rather than the idea that he physically stole it from the pagoda? How much liability is WP exposed to if we are faithfully reporting the claims made in other reasonably reliable sources? Regarding the usefulness of having an article on individuals like this, it seems to me that having the ability to vet sources and present them in a maximally neutral way (as is done on WP) is highly valuable when information about individuals is spread across a wide variety of sources, which, notably, include particularly one-sided ones like this one which come up quickly in a Google search of the subject. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, talk. As I said above, keep to facts that aren't subject to reasonable dispute. Perhaps something like this (I haven't delved into the sources, you should take this as a guide only). 1) Diran brought the Buddha into the United States from Myanmar. 2) If known, provide whatever Diran said his purpose in doing so was, or where he said he obtained his right to do so. 3) Third parties (FBI, government of Myanmar, other ?) contended that Diran brought the item out of country X and to the US without the legal right to do so, and/or without complying with local/international/US law (as applicable based on sources). Avoid loaded words like smuggling. 4) No charges were brought against Diran, but he agreed to relinquish his claimed right to the statue. 5) Do we know what happened to the statue afterwards? I think they key is, as you've already noted, to avoid loaded words like smuggle and make very sure that you keep to the facts as publicly reported, and when in doubt either omit allegations or look for further supporting sources. As to risk of lawsuit, I'm not aware of anyone suing Wikipedia, although I'm sure it has been done or threatened. It can be done even if there isn't a really good basis (see Pearson v. Chung for a scary example of a baseless lawsuit that went on for years) but you can lower your risk of being sued -- never to nothing -- but to an acceptable level by being conscious of the fact that you need to be very careful with stating negative facts about a living person, especially one who is not a public figure. As to the "how much" liability, the damages for libel attempt to quantify loss of reputation, and an admitted/convicted possessor of unlawful pornography would have little reputation to lose, and would not be a darling of the jury. But as Pearson shows you, sometimes the legal system takes so long in getting to right result that winning doesn't look much different from losing. Prevention is the best medicine. David.thompson.esq (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes clear Diran's claim to have purchased the statue for $18,000 in Thailand in 1990, sourced to Chicago Tribune.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 00:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Rayyan

Sahil Rayyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod-singer who falls under too soon (and I think this article was deleted before-or I might be thinking of a similar name.) Wgolf (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Due to a consensus that the article just meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purification (film)

Purification (film) (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)

lack of indi secondary sources fails GNG. Film doesn't meet WP:NOTFILM Widefox; talk 18:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that in TOOSOON/NYF? I do see "Attributes" 1. no evidence 2. no 3. no 4. no 5. no. Additionally it just doesn't have any notable person or company and Joseph Ciminera was deleted G11, recreated as Joe Ciminera (deleted). I've unlinked him. Despite good efforts, it is an orphan, created as a promo / COI, and it comes across borderline GNG to me. Oh, I missed John Basedow, a borderline notable BLP with COI / promo advert. Widefox; talk 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found one review and a press release. I removed the original sources, which were all non-usable for various reasons. It relied heavily on primary sources and IMDb, but it did have two reviews, neither of which were in places that Wikipedia would really consider reliable. VideoViews doesn't seem to have any real editorial oversight, which is kind of hammered in by the fact that they misspelled "reviews" at the top of the page. The issue with the ShockYa website is that it also doesn't appear to have any true verifiable editorial oversight and the review also appears to be a cut/paste from the Examiner website, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so that's a no go as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, so we have two sources without editorial control (http://bloody-disgusting.com/bd-staff/ doesn't seem to list any staff). Widefox; talk 11:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody Disgusting is a reliable source. It's listed at WP:FILM/R. Brad Miska is the editor-in-chief. I don't know what happened to their staff page, but it's got editorial control. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So one without editorial control, and one that did have and presumably does still have now. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not listed at FILM/R. Widefox; talk 11:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Good work finding sources. Still, it seems weak (see above). (I get a security warning when checking the emmreport.com link). Widefox; talk 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Widefox: WP:WAX? A shame about that BLP article, but under WP:NOTINHERITED, problems with a poor article on one of its minor actors (man with gun) does not denigrate the existing press that has THIS film topic meet WP:NF.
But as long as we're waxing, an article on Ciminera may be back... as his notability as a chef (not as a filmmaker) may allow it just as it does with chef and foodie Bobby Flay. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: WP:NOTINHERITED is a powerful essay to remind us to consider solely on the merits of this article, all well and good. It's not actually that clear-cut is it? Guideline WP:NACTOR "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films,..." so there's an explicitly inherited relationship for actors from films (but agree none specified for films from actors, and none for minor roles). Sure, this film arguably passes GNG on its own merits (per above), but lacks normal healthy support - no incoming links as it's an orphan, it was promo/COI with the main outgoing link to be deleted non-notable (promo/COI). It may technically be a weak keep but it's not a rosy picture. Widefox; talk 09:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: But you are trying to denigrate the film's coverage through a dependence on an immaterial association of the film with a minor personality whose role was the simple descriptive "man with gun". Almost every film meriting a Wikipedia article also has actors who are themselves non-notable. At best that role is minor enough so that it should not be included in the article about the film, unless there is some coverage of "man with gun"... and I find none that include John+Basedow in way way other than his minor name being in listings. By way of extreme example, our article on the film Inception informs our reader of 14 cast members, while IMDB lists over 50 credited with many as descriptives. We do not ignore a film's coverage because some of its cast were non-notable. Sorry, but that's an extreme misuse of WP:INHERITED and not how we judge films. As even you grant "film arguably passes GNG on its own merits", there is no need to deflect by bringing forward an AFD on a different issue. As Basedow's minor role does not meet WP:NACTOR, that one goes, while this one stays. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: Straw man argument. The sourcing speaks for itself - it's weak: [13] doesn't count for N (a simple listing), then we have an interview (so lacking independence) pages 1 and 2, and a primary. That leave two sources (1. and 5., as discussed above). That's borderline GNG, far short of significant coverage. There's no notable distributor or knowledge of wide distribution or award. These are serious notability issues. Separately to N, there's little or no redeeming/supporting features such as (notable actors) incoming links, outgoing links. It's an island barely above water. There's also the TOOSOON point above? Widefox; talk 11:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: The "strawman" is to ignore that GNG is met... even if just barely... and to then complain that it does not meet criteria NOT demanded by WP:NF. Sorry. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Internet_censorship_in_China. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 China censorship of Google services

2014 China censorship of Google services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This is a badly written content fork of Internet censorship in China. It's about an incident in 2014 but is written in the present tense. However, the language is opaque and most of the references are in Chinese so it's impossible to understand what the current state of affairs is. Normally I'd merge it but without adequate references that can't (and shouldn't) be done. This is a well-meaning but hopeless article that fails WP:CFORK, WP:POV, WP:VERIFY. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - (i) The present tense is used only because it is not a incident in the past, but a incinent from past to present. It is still blocked now. (ii) Wikipedia:CFORK issue. I don't think it is a content fork. By definition, A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. However, it is a complete article. Even if you really think it is a content fork, it should be included in the exclusion rule - related articles. (iii) WP:NPOV issue, the non-neutral words such as "obviously" have already removed. If there are still some, then please remove the words. (iv) WP:VERIFY issue. Most of the words have citation, exception some with the {{citation needed}} templates. Moreover, citations to non-English sources are allowed, although English-language sources are preferred. I don't think that "I don't understand non-English sources" can be a reason to deny the reliability of sources. --Yejianfei (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see no reason why it cannot be included in the main article, which already has a section on specific events such as blocking of Google in 2013. The article uses both the past tense and the present continuous tense randomly, but only gives dates and references from mid 2014 - nothing more recent - so there's no reliable sources to prove that this is ongoing. I'm sure it is, of course, but then it certainly isn't a 2014 issue per the article title and much of the content, and that's an even stronger case for merging with the main article. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the tense: There is nothing wrong with the tense. Google started to be blocked at the end of May 2014 (past tense), but is still blocked at present (present tense). -- Yejianfei (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that's not how it reads. For example the second sentence says "users... found that" (past tense) "are not able" (present tense), both mixed up in the same sentence. You also talk about this as being ongoing but provide no recent references. Admittedly it's now a lot clearer than it was, but anyway that doesn't matter - this article is a content fork, which is all that needs to be said, really. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but it simply is a content fork. Regardless of whether or not other articles are, this one is. Consider this point: the title refers to 2014. That means the article can only be about an event that happened in the past, in 2014, and is now finished (like the 2012 Olympics, for example). But in that case it is a content fork of the main article because there are already other similar incidents there that took place in the past, such as this one in 2013, and that is the appropriate place for it to be. But if it is about a wider ongoing issue (which it is) then it addresses a more general point about China's ongoing censorship of Google, which is a subject that is covered extensively in Internet censorship in China. So if it's in the past, about a specific event, it's a content fork and if it's in the present, about an ongoing issue, it's a content fork. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Somewhat relevant: With regard to national censorship of popular sites, for Facebook we're using Censorship of Facebook and we put a handful of countries in there, each with different incidents. I notice most of the stuff in this article: Censorship_by_Google appears to be government or legal forced censorship on Google, and there's already a China section, so seems to be a good target for merging or merge to Google China as suggested above.. ― Padenton|✉   21:48, 1 April 2015‎
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Barnes

Archie Barnes (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 any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS  White Whirlwind  咨  17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 20:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of East-West Thought

Journal of East-West Thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted as a copyvio several times, now re-created as a one-line"article" with a long list of external links. Most of the latter are press releases, postings of articles published in the journal, library listings, and such. None of them constitute both independent and in-depth coverage. Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, fails WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, so delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Nasser Alrazooqi

Khalid Nasser Alrazooqi (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 notable director of IT . Many newspaper notices about his various projects, but they do not add up to notability DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Carey Hurley

Adrienne Carey Hurley (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)

Appears to fails WP:NACADEMICS, and sourcing mostly appears to be routine and not help pass WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrow (film)

Sorrow (film) (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 film planned for release next month. No indication of notability per WP:NFILM, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Article's creator evidently realized this, and attempted use of fake references. Not much left following cleanup: at best, WP:TOOSOON. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Soft delete Apparently a rough version this screened in Houston in 2014. The finished version is only now being scheduled to make the circuit of horror film festivals, so we may hear more about it. Until then, a bit TOO SOON.... but it's close, very close. Your Houston News relates how the final version was completed in July 2014.[14] and then in August 2014, Houston Press shared that the film (they had watched) was good but the (original) poster was boring.[15] Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what that means by that bit having been written by someone named "Community Reports". It looks like a forwarded press release. Geogene (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters much as we both suggest a deletion, but I'll WP:AGF that "what that means" is that a small community newspaper chose to report community news as "Community Reports", rather than under some unknown or anonymous byline. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Given that he's now appeared for his country, a lot of the objections raised to the existence of this article have been removed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ikonomidis

Chris Ikonomidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested because he is signed to Lazio and has been called to the Australian national team. Since he has not played any actual matches for either of them, this is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT, and in the absence of significant coverage, the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, rather than keep for now. Obviously created WP:TOOSOON by someone keen to highlight his "prodigious" but as yet untested talent. He'll likely be notable in the future, perhaps in the very near future. But we don't create articles about non-notable people and then wait and hope they will become notable. We wait until they are notable and then create the article. This was simply done the wrong way around. St★lwart111 07:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources, but you guys have a much better handle on the wiki meta language than me so it seems you'll get your way. Cheers. - Paladisious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious (talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - if such coverage exists (considered to be coverage of him and not simply WP:ROUTINE signing announcements and the like) then that would most certainly be worth considering. St★lwart111 08:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to a rash of article about him after he was selected for Australia there is Gatt, Ray (3 August 2013), "Teen winger driven to succeed", The Australian. Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: I'll remind you that serious allegations such as canvassing which lack evidence are personal attacks, and point out that all comments above were made before the source you cited was published. I invite you to either provide evidence of misconduct or strike your remarks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I should have included a smiley. Or used the convention at WP:RD to put facetious remarks in small print. Thincat (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paladisious, please do not remove deletion templates from articles while a discussion is ongoing. St★lwart111 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to discuss? He's had a senior international cap now, and reliable source for this has been added to the article. He meets WP:NFOOTBALL, case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladisious (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then an administrator will come and close it. St★lwart111 10:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion can probably now be speedily kept, him playing this morning for the national team changes everything and means the grey area has entirely been removed. Daniel 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as people have mentioned, he featured for Australia's Senior National Team against Macedonia this morning in a FIFA Sanctioned Friendly. There can be no argument now. I had strong sympathy to holding fire prior on this, but there can be few better ways of signalling your arrival to senior professional football than appearing for your nation's National Team in a FIFA-sanctioned friendly. Also, I've perused the pages of other young pro players over the years and I've seen others kept on for far longer for far less, like a solitary League Cup match. Evidence for Ikonomidis' NT appearance:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-31/teenager-ikonomidis-delighted-to-make-socceroos-debut/6361430
http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/socceroos/macedonia-v-socceroos-chris-ikonomidis-and-tarek-elrich-delighted-to-make-roos-debuts/story-e6frf4l3-1227285941004 Xfiles82 (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Discounting the blocked socks, there is clear consensus to delete. Nakon 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living Hell (band)

Living Hell (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)

Major COI issue here-band members have the names of the contributors. Not sure about notability either Wgolf (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This band is notable per wikipedia guidelines

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.

Furthermore - I don't see a COI here? Because of the picture? I don't think that qualifies?

Thanks,

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI is due to the fact one of the major contributors has the same name as one of the band members. I actually don't mind if a obscure band, obscure film, ect have pages to be honest, but this is a bit much.Wgolf (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just think marking it for deletion is a bit much. This and the other article aren't promoting anything. The bands releases are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they definitely meet the: *** Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).*** requirement. 66.161.14.35 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep easily meets the "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement.Both labels have Wikipedia pages.Both releases are listed. 76.119.12.233 (talk)

Keep. I created this page. I did so because I like the band. I was happy to see the singer was writing movies. If you need two records from a notable indie label Living Hell meets this requirement. Popular band for their genre. Dilbert Grapes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Discounting the blocked socks, there is clear consensus to delete. Nakon 02:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Through (Band)

Follow Through (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 that is pretty much a huge COI give then the band member name Craig Mack is one of the articles contributors. Not sure about notability as well Wgolf (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf - Follow Through were on two of the largest indie straight edge labels ever (Revelation and Smorgasbord) and are listed in their discography.

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Really, a big punk band.

GB,

Tim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.14.35 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree **Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).** easily meets that requirement. 66.161.14.35 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP clearly meets the "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" requirement. This band actually has a large punk following. Big straightedge band in the 90's. 76.119.12.233 (talk)

Keep. I created this page. I did so because I like the band. I was happy to see the singer was writing movies. If you need two records from a notable indie label Follow Through meets this requirement. Popular band for their genre. Dilbert Grapes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Willing to userfy if someone wants to claim this article. Nakon 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARx2

WARx2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous version of this was snow deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warx2 (2nd nomination). This version makes a claim for a PBS audience choice award, which is not strictly true. It does appear in the list at #24, but there has been an extensive social media campaign and it looks like Wikipedia is a part of it. All other references either go nowhere or are social media. Acroterion (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of notability; lack of third party reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the usual way for a film to be notable is through (professional) critical reviews. It did tie for first in the PBS audience choice thing - see [23] and sort by audience choice - but there is no evidence (i.e. RS coverage) to suggest that is of any importance. If PBS had a critical writeup of the film, that would certainly count for something, but it appears it is just part of their list. On top of that the list ranking seems to be an automated formula and the film's placement comes exclusively form the audience choice vote. The only potentially noteworthy critical review I found is [24], which is certainly not enough by itself. However, I will reserve judgement for now in case other critical reviews turn up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the film is apparently slated for theatrical release on April 24, so there is a decent possibility of reviews coming out at that time. As such, it might make sense to put the article in draft space until the end of April top see if anything emerges. (Yes, I know the article can always be restored, but it is much more accessible in draft space and draft space in not indexed by search engines, so there is no harm to it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to concur that the award does not appear to be overly notable since I can't really find anything non-primary that discusses the award. By this I mean that other than the PBS page, there really isn't anything out there that says anything about the award other than press releases. I can't entirely see how the voting was done on the audience awards. The thing about the audience award at film festivals is that there's some form of quality control in that it's limited to the people who saw the film. If this is an internet only award, did they open up the voting to anyone who could open an account? Did they have a set audience pick the winner? That can make a huge difference with things of this nature. I'm mostly saying this since (as the admin that closed the prior AfD) there were multiple SPAs that came to the last AfD and at least one person voiced a concern about socking or meating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against the film's being kept and if the award process would pass muster then that would help show notability along with the film review, but given that there were so many concerns about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at the prior AfD, it's a reasonable enough concern that this may have been the case with the award if it was decided upon an Internet vote. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Getting an award for a movie isn't even possible before the release date, unless you are a beast who has the ability to warp or distort time. The Snowager-is awake 02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the film has been released at film festivals, but not yet in theaters. This is a fairly standard model for indie films, so it is indeed quite possible to win an award before a film is released theatrically. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm still trying to figure out what the PBS award actually is since this link says that it's essentially a rankings list. They give points to films based on various factors, one of which is whether or not the film won an award. It does not seem to be an actual award in and of itself and is entirely based on the number of wins. For example, Citizenfour won more awards in general, which resulted in it being ranked higher on the main page. However it was only nominated for one audience award at CPH:DOX, so technically it fell lower in the rankings since it did not win. The reason why WARx2 and America are tied at 1 is because they each won one audience award at some film festival. The site does not state where the award is received, but I can find nothing to actually show that this is an actual award that PBS hands out. From what I can gather, this seems to have been shown at some point last year, possibly at a small or indie film festival that doesn't register on IMDb for whatever reason. Just to make sure, though, I am going to email PBS about this. If it is an actual award in and of itself, then it can count towards notability. However if it isn't, which I'm guessing is probably the case, I think that they would probably like to know that someone is trying to say that PBS is handing out awards based on this listing and that they may like to clarify this somewhere on their website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
alts
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Send to Draft space per suggestion of ThaddeusB. It has already missed its March 20, 2015 theatrical release date, and the April 24 date is not for certain either. ThaddeusB is correct, in that if this has a 2015 theatrical release and gets coverage, we can always return it to mainspace. Even with its festival release, this is still a matter of TOO SOON. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with this being sent to draft space. I wanted to drop in to write that I did hear back from PBS and they said that they did not give out any awards and that the site was just aggregating awards from other locations akin to how Rotten Tomatoes collects reviews. So in other words, there is no PBS award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our company tried unsuccessfully to acquire WARx2 from The Strasson Group, We called PBS to verify the Audience choice Award, The person we spoke to told us that "it was true that WArx2 won this Award"

and the method used was PBS judges decided/ voted although social media popularity was part of the reason it was listed and nominated for the Award and an online screener was sent to PBS, WARx2 tied Dinesh Disouza's America for the top spot. So yes WARx2 won PBS Award, lets put our feelings aside. It's listed on PBS as an award winner, so why would they list it?fifausa — Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junglepussy

Junglepussy (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)

Well not sure if this counts as a contested prod since it was removed by a logged off ip, but this comes across as a unotable artist who is too soon. She might need a page someday but not yet Wgolf (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)withdrawnWgolf (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anmol Chand

Anmol Chand (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)

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 09:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Sludge

AfDs for this article:
Metal Sludge (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)

Somehow this article came back after being voted delete per csd-has been tagged for notability for 7 years now and still has nothing that makes it stand out. Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This website doesn't seem to be famous in its own right, and only brushes up against fame (such as the unreferenced mention on VH1 claim). Also, the article is a mix of present and past tense, but it seems to be defunct, so in its short life it didn't do anything particularly noteworthy. I was going to say merge it with the article about the founder, but he was already merged with another article, so this seems like a topic on the far periphery of topics that already barely clear notability.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Bardin and Herostratus who both tagged this for notability. Pinging Merope, UtherSRG, Danny Lilithborne, koavf, My Alt Account, Mailer diablo, who participated in 1st AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm. I tagged it for notability in 2007 when it was two sentences long and had no refs. It's certainly been expanded quite a bit since then, and some refs have been added. None of the refs are very good in the sense of being notable publications. There's not a mention in Rolling Stone or Spin (do they still have that) let alone the New York Times or whatever. Still... it's a lot more than just a stub. Somebody's put some work, love, and care into it.... the refs, while not notable, are not negligable, and some are sufficiently reliable to probably be true, I guess. I guess I'd say that notability is surely not established per WP:GNG, but on the other hand the Wikipedia is not paper and I don't see this as a particularly bad article... I'm not gonna vote. I'm just pointing out these things. The person closing can interpret my comment as she wishes. Herostratus (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website.--malconfort (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Raoul Heertje. Nakon 00:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedytrain

Comedytrain (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)

Comedy club that has been long tagged for notability, now maybe the fact that it was the first one there might be notable but, not sure if it warrants a article. Wgolf (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universum Studio

Universum Studio (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 about a German distribution studio was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax (G3). I declined speedy deletion because, if it is a hoax, it is not blatant and obvious; it has an elaborate website (from which I gather it is a BluRay distributor) and it has a detailed and consistent presence on IMDb. The user who applied the G3 tag challenged my decision on my talk page. I then looked a little further and found a couple of mentions at third-party sites. [25] [26] Last August the article was deleted as G3, after being tagged as a hoax by the same user who tagged it this time. I am not convinced it is a hoax; that can be discussed here; but in any case I don't believe the subject is notable and I recommend deletion per WP:CORP and WP:GNG. MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The article last August was created by an editor who was recently blocked for socking. The current article was created by an editor with a similar name, and I have suggested they also be looked at as a possible sock. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article ist a hoax. When you visit the Website, there is only given a mobile phone number, no telephone of fax. And the "Founder" and "Key man" has an "outlook.de" email. Its also told that the company ist registered in the German Trade Register (Amtsgericht Zweibrücken), but on the official website https://www.handelsregister.de the Universum Studio cannot be found, although in Germany every GmbH must be registererd at the trade Register. The Websites MelanieN found are about de:Universum Film, a real film company, not Universum Studio. --JLKiel (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is almost certainly a hoax. Having dealt with the hoaxer (including their numerous sockpuppets) before, I know that their activity here also involves astroturfing IMDb with similar bogus information. There are zero reliable sources that the subject of this article exists. I agree with JLKiel in that the film studio of the similar name exists, but this company does not. --Kinu t/c 22:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Fort Myers, Florida

South Fort Myers, Florida (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 as a WP:NEO. The term is an ill-defined local colloquialism. While the term itself gets used quite often by media sources, it has no actual definition. The southern edge of the city of Fort Myers could be "south Ft. Myers", or the Cypress Lake, Florida CDP a bit outside of the city could be since it has a Ft. Myers postal designation or is it San Carlos Park, Florida CDP, miles south of the city, but still with a Ft. Myers postal designation? The article is without sources and nothing to define what the scope actually is. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 send for cleanup (yes, this is an option since the old days). I think everyone is in agreement that the article needs additional sources and work, so let's get it done. If that doesn't work out, the keep arguments will be significantly weakened in any future AfD or merge/redirect discussions. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication

AfDs for this article:
University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication (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)

In short, WP:RS. I have nominated this page because it has no citations, and it appears that the information is taken directly from the "SOJCs" own webpage - i.e. is just promotional garbage. Also lacking WP:Notability, as we don't have a page (or need one) for every journalism department in the world. FarahPanda (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'd be happy to help adding citations and making the tone more neutral. As for notability, SOJC is considered by some to be one of the top journalism schools in the United States and certainly in Oregon.[1] ChaseKR (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Best Journalism Schools at U.S. Colleges and Universities". College Media Matters.
  • Keep w/ Reliable Sources. I agree with Chase, but the source he quotes isn't very reliable. It's a blog, from what I can tell - let me know if I'm wrong, Chase. I did a quick search through google news and various other pages, and I couldn't find anything that supports notability. But I could absolutely be wrong. If anyone finds some reliable sources (e.g. Chronicle of Higher Ed, AEJMC, etc.), alongside Wikipedia pages for notable alumni and faculty, the argument for notability is easily met. I can't do that work, though: Full disclosure, I've graduated from the SOJC, so it's hard to tell what is actual fact, and what is PR bs coming from what can often be an echo chamber about how "excellent" we are. If I don't see anything in the next couple of days, I'll have to change my vote to delete. But let's work on this puzzle together!
    • On a side note, Fara: The entry does help with some other entries that you're working on (e.g. Carol Stabile). People have different philosophies for editing Wikipedia, but mine is generally to help build up the encyclopedia rather than delete things that could use improvement. That's the purpose of the stub tag that is admittedly way over due on this page. I don't mean to be condescending, or to tell you how to do what you want, but to suggest a different way of looking at editing. Either way, thanks for being so involved! Great to see new Wikipedians coming out of the FemTechNet project!! Thebrycepeake (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it is a blog and its methodology is pretty questionable, but it is tied to Associated Collegiate Press. Surprisingly enough, there isn't much in the way of journalism program rankings so we need to work in a broader sense of notability. Thanks for being honest about the conflict of interest! ChaseKR (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nakon 01:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What It Means to Be Defeated

What It Means to Be Defeated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The articles fails WP:NALBUM. It does have references, the most notable could be Infectious Magazine [28], announcing their tour and about 17 words about the album. Other notable reference could be Metalinsider [29], but 2 lines about the album does not make it notable (yet). Should be redirected to Dayseeker. Karlhard (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of album articles which only consists out of at least two or three sentences and don't have any references (for example Above the City or Behind the Mountains). Why we should keep them? I looked up some references for that article and it is going to be deleted because the references aren't notable enough? --Goroth (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Above the City has a billboard article [30]. as per Behind the Mountains [31] [32] [33]. Should I continue? This article does not address any notability as a musical recordings. This should be strongly deleted or redirected to Dayseeker. --Karlhard (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They may have articles in Billboard or similar magazines but no one is linked in the articles. What It Means to Be Defeated has reviews in New Noise Magazine, Smag Magazine, Punktastic, here are some articles about What It Means To Be Defeated, Top40 Charts and Rockfreaks. Notable sourches enough? --Goroth (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are not notable enough, most of them are press release. Could not even stablish the notability of the article. Let's wait the feedback from other contributors. Karlhard (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeth Kollam

Sangeeth Kollam (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 individual. References are either attack sites or primary sources. Unable to find reliable sources. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinson Real Estate Group

Vinson Real Estate Group (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 evidence of notability of this company. Only three sources, of which 2 are over 15 years old. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) –Davey2010Talk 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khedery

Ali Khedery (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 notable enough. Minor foreign adviser whose name was mentioned among thousands others in WikiLeaks.--Kathovo talk 13:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Photo caption: "Ali Khedery standing behind George W Bush, with Nouri al Malaki"... op-ed piece in the NY Times... and WashPo too... significant mentions in multiple books... clearly had a lot of power. Wikileaks was a small part of his notability. Article in Foreign Policy... --Elvey(t•c) 21:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Standing behind Bush in a photograph is not a criterion for notability.
  2. He clearly fails WP:AUTHOR, co-eding aryicles is obviously not a valid reason to establish notability as a notable author. He also fails WP:POLITICIAN for that matter.
  3. Mention 1st is a brief description in one sentence among a long list of minor advisers, 2nd is somewhat a lengthy personal description, author also describes many others, hundreds of names are found in the index. 3rd Khedery is acknowledged for proofreading parts of the book.
  4. Wikileaks are basically email correspondences, you can find tens of thousands of names in database, nothing special here.--Kathovo talk 06:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that he receives significant media coverage.--Kathovo talk 10:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you have to make a small effort, like checking Google News. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not media coverage of him. He is a media commentator, his articles and their mirrors results in X hits when googling his name. You will find also thousands of commentators[34][35] and journalists [36][37] whose name also appear quite often in news search results, this is simply no criteria for an entry in Wikipedia unless they accomplished something of note.--Kathovo talk 11:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In that photo, of that event, it's evidence of notability. He's the guy who made it happen.
  2. What straw man arguments you make! It doesn't matter that he doesn't meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:PORNSTAR, either. FS, he's not a "creative professional". Wrong category. Meets WP:GNG. Numerous reliable news sources WHERE HE IS TEH SUBJECT demonstrate notability.
  3. Mischaracterizing him as a mere a "media commentator" is like describing Barack Obama as a mere "community organizer". FS! Then, at the citation you mischaracterize as being merely that he proofread, he is credited for his efforts as a diplomat to build democracy in Baghdad.
  4. Played a major role in Iraq's political history, among other things, as a kingmaker (of Nouri Al-Maliki). This classified cable was addressed specifically to him by name. Probably because it was largely about Maliki.

--Elvey(t•c) 16:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Software Limited

Marine Software 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)

Fails WP:CORP as non notable company Flat Out let's discuss it 12:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Heretics Conference

Muslim Heretics Conference (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)

There is some coverage and notable people are involved, but I'm not convinced it's enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Tagged for notability 7 years ago by Deb, still unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thy name is

AfDs for this article:
Thy name is (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'm not convinced that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Previous AfD was closed with only one comment due to the nominator's sockpuppetry rather than the notability fo the subject. Pinging those who have commented on its notability previously: Nathanmurray1, Lambiam, Jnelson09. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Full disclosure, article creator. That said, as snowclones go, this one's notability, honestly, shouldn't even be in question. This was coined by the William Shakespeare in one of his most revered works: Hamlet, and is probably the most quotable line from the play after "To be or not to be..." (which also has its own Wikipedia page, incidentally). The term has been used constantly ever since over the last 400 years throughout the English speaking world. Recent examples:
  • "Fragility, thy name is Iran" -- from the Asian Times on March 29, 2015
  • "Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama." -- From the Boston Globe on March 27, 2015
  • "Stockholm Syndrome, thy name is Beauty and the Beast." -- from VH1 on March 28, 2015
  • "Overconfidence, thy name is not Sutter." -- from The Los Angeles Times on March 20, 2015
  • "Treachery, thy name is 'Justified'" -- from The Washington Post on February 24, 2015
  • "Progress, thy name is not Dick Durbin." -- from The Wall Street Journal on March 19, 2015
Honestly, I could do this for hours. It has penetrated the English lexicon indisputably.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Valley Magpies

AfDs for this article:
Thames Valley Magpies (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)

Last AfD ended in no consensus. As this has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for seven years, it's about time it was resolved. I can't see that it meets WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG; there are sources but they are not necessarily reliable. There are 2 incoming links which would be potential redirect targets - I would favour AFL Britain rather than Australian rules football in England#London. Pinging those who have examined its notability before: Grahamec, Jenks24, Abcmaxx. Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Yoran

Victor Yoran (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 he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. He doesn't have a Russian language article, although there is a German language article. Successful, but not notable. Tagged for notability for seven years. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: The Haunted Angel, Brewcrewer, Kvng. Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only album he ever released was a set of Bach Cello suites. It seems to have been on a minor label (not Deutsche Grammophon, Sony, EMI, Decca or the like, or even Naxos). The Wikipedia article mentions a book by the name of "Russian Cellists: Alexander Ivashkin, Sergey Antonov, Leonid Gorokhov, Misha Quint, Victor Yoran" in its bibliography. I tried to track down this book, but according to Google Books, it is just a copy of Wikipedia material: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Russian_Cellists.html?id=zdeOSQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y. I do not doubt that he was a cellist of some repute - he played at the Carnegie Recital Hall: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TzRCUGkvrmgC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=%22victor+yoran%22+cellist&source=bl&ots=jsZXb6GKOn&sig=ALb-eTsrRgUUz33RifTmArDGjOc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gSIdVZeVJePYmAXrq4G4BA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=%22victor%20yoran%22%20cellist&f=false. However, overall, I do not think that he meets the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" that are listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). For example, he has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" or "released two or more albums on a major record label". Syek88 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Clayton (theologian)

Philip Clayton (theologian) (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)

Can't find any independent reliable sources about this person. Sam Walton (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of coverage. I put "Philip Clayton" + Claremont into a google news search, and came up with ppages of substantive stuff. Page could certainly use expansion. But notability is not in question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, could you give examples of some of this coverage? Sam Walton (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the holder of a named chair and author of a number of academic works. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the necessary criterion is satisfied. (the actual notability is as an expert in his subject, but we regard the named chair as a convenient shortcut, since it's a reliable indication of that). DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Holder of a named academic chair. Carrite (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:PROF: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Does anyone actually have any reliable sources to use in this article? If not, saying "has a named chair" carries little weight. Sam Walton (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 08:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swaberita

Swaberita (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)

It is hard to find sources in the native language, but I couldn't establish that it was WP:NOTABLE. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can find a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.  Sandstein  19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards world

Wizards world (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)

Can't find any reliable sources for this game, and article is little more than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Could be the case that references are in Russian, but I couldn't find any. Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) –Davey2010Talk 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolmen Press

Dolmen Press (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)

There are claims to WP:NOTABILITY but not substantiated. Seems promotional. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hutton, Clare; Walsh, Patrick, eds. (2011). The Oxford History of the Irish Book, Volume V: The Irish Book in English, 1891-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 591. ISBN 0199249113.

      The subject is discussed in Chapter 25 of this book. The book notes on page 11:

      The failings of state-sponsored attempts to control the direction of book culture through censorship of Irish language publishing were obvious. But for the shining exception represented by the Dolmen Press (established in 1951 and discussed by Derval Tubridy in Chapter 25) little was to change in the world of Irish publishing during the 1950s—a period of very heavy emigration—until late in that decade when new economic policies were introduced.

      The book notes on page 591:

      Though initially it seemed like a hazardous venture, the range of publications and the quality of the editions marked the Dolmen Press out as an extraordinary publishing house which rejuvenated Irish literature and criticism, and further advanced the tradition of illustration begun with the illuminated manuscripts of early Christian times. The man behind this achievement has been described as 'a new kind of impresario and a reinventor of prevailing tradition.' Typographer, artist, architect, set-designer, Yeats scholar, and philatelist, Liam Miller played a vital role in the development of a new generation of poets and writers of the 1950s and 1960s in Ireland, making possible, as one writer notes, 'a normal career, one volume evolving from another.' With his tremendous eye for design Miller brought the art back into publishing, encouraging collaboration between artists and writers, sourcing the very best in materials and ensuring that Dolmen Press books were of the highest standard. For Louis le Brocquy, Miller 'was an artist enraptured by a vision of perfection for its own sake, by an overriding concern for the thing itself.'

      The book notes on pages 633–634:

      The Dolmen Press ceased business following the death of Liam Miller in 1987 and the firm's archive is now in the Z Smyth Reynolds Library in Wake Forest University in North Carolina.

      The book notes on pages 1–2:

      A few salient details may be drawn from the example of Heaney's publishing history. Heaney is one amoung a number of major twentieth century Irish writers to establish a literary career in London, and then desire publication in Ireland. At the very beginning of his career, in 1964, he sent a collection of poems to the leading Irish cultural publisher of this era, the Dolmen Press in Dublin, which was run by Liam Miller (1924–87), a distinguished book designer with great enthusiasm for fine literature and printing.

      The book notes on page 110:

      In addition to these major players there existed a plethora of smaller firms, many of which were miniscule in size, short-livved in their duration, and frankly non-commercial in their activities (being little more than hobbies for their owners). A small number of these private presses, most notably the Cuala Press from 1908 to 1946, and later the Dolmen Press from 1951 to 1988, were dedicated to the publication of imaginative literature in beautiful hand printed form, and, in particular, to the promotion of the work of new writers.

    2. Redshaw, Thomas Dillon (May 2012). "'The Dolmen Poets': Liam Miller and Poetry Publishing in Ireland, 1951–1961". Irish University Review. 42 (1). Edinburgh University Press: 141–154. doi:10.3366/iur.2012.0013.

      The abstract notes:

      With the publication of The Dolmen Miscellany (1962) and the inception of Poetry Ireland the same year, Liam Miller's Dolmen Press came to represent artistically and commercially Irish poets and their works within the Republic of Ireland and abroad. In Miller's publishing practice, the liberal notion of ‘Poetry Ireland’ had come to supplant a narrower one: the idea of the ‘Dolmen Poets.’ As the nineteen fifties drew to a close, the Dolmen Poets were Padraic Colum and Austin Clarke (but not Patrick Kavanagh), Richard Murphy, John Montague, and especially Thomas Kinsella. In Dolmen's earliest years, however, the notion of the ‘Dolmen Poets’ had entailed other figures – David Marcus, Donald Davie, Valentin Iremonger – as well as a “group” editorial method and small, economical print format suited to Dolmen's elementary technical facilities. When, in the ‘Dolmen Poets” format Miller printed the programme for the famous, three-way reading by Murphy, Montague, and Kinsella at the Royal Hibernian Hotel on 3 February 1961, both the occasion and the souvenir programme signalled Miller's embracing of the concept of ‘Poetry Ireland’.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dolmen Press to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChipVault

ChipVault (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable web project. I only found one mention of it (apart from Wikipedia itself and the repo at SourceForge). The original contributor has a single purpose account (contribs) and appears to have a close connection with the topic. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Lee

Aileen Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD about a businesswomen who lacks any real n notability. No significant award or achievements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic Comment The nominator has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. He does little else other than reverting and nominating my edits for deletion. For a recent example see my comments in a previous nomination “discussion". I have been complaining about this behavior for months, but it seems that on Wikipedia the victim is automatically at fault. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you strike that comment. Not only are you off-topic, you are casting aspersions on another editor, and have done this multiple times. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm leaning to delete at the moment, but this is a very borderline case, hence the appropriateness of bringing this to AfD.
Of the 7 references currently in the article, [1] is written by the subject herself, [2] is more a less a summary of the article by the subject, [3] is clearly press release based, about another person and company, and mentions the subject only in passing, [4] is a profile from a site with user-generated content, [5] is a brief "interview" with the subject about her view of another company, [6] and [7] are from TechCrunch (as are [1] and [3]) and are connected with publicizing the launch of her new company. Incidentally, TechCrunch is owned by AOL, which had a heavy investment by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, for whom the subject still works. Note also that "founding CEO" of RMG Networks means she was the first CEO but not necessarily the founder of the company, and she had left RMG four years before it became a publicly traded company.
I have found nothing which covers the subject herself in any kind of depth. Thus she arguably does not pass WP:GNG, and she clearly does not pass the alternative criteria at WP:ANYBIO. One of the major problems with assessing articles about businesses and business people is that they are all seasoned users of the public relations industry who can generate coverage, out of all proportion to the importance or long-lasting significance of the subject, especially in the case of start-ups and venture capital. I suggest reading "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR" from the Columbia Journalism Review for caveats that all editors of business-related articles should be aware of. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: It's possible she's notable for reasons the article doesn't make clear. The WSJ apparently finds female VCs interesting enough to write about. How rare are they? How rare are female VCs who start their own firms? If she's breaking new ground, the article should say so up front. Right now the article suggests she's just another respected businessperson who occasionally gets mentioned briefly in articles along with a bunch of other people. --Rosekelleher (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very good question. According to Reuters [38], 6% of all partners in all VC firms globally are women—a small percentage, but not a small number, given the number of VC firms. As an example, Lee was previously a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which alone has about 10 women partners (junior and senior). See also this list of 105 women venture capitalists, although largely confined to the US. There are already several VC firms started by women which are dedicated solely to funding start-ups by women entrepreneurs. As far`as I can see, Lee's new firm, Cowboy Ventures, is not one of those. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. She is undeniably successful as an individual, but notability is another thing, and she is not that. I tried to find an article she could be merged to, but none seem apropos. As an editor above enumerated, the citations in the article are all borderline and weak except for the TechCrunch one. This passage made me think that it is too soon for her to have her own page, if ever:

It’s generally too early to tell how those bets will ultimately play out, although a few of those companies have already moved on to successfully raise Series A rounds. Lee declined to comment for this story, but after two-and-a-half years, she and Lichtenstein are apparently now ready to raise a new fund. While the SEC filing shows they are seeking slightly more capital to work with for Cowboy Ventures Fund II, at $55 million, the amount is consistent with the same type of early-stage investments.

$55million isn't that much money in the venture capital world (I don't think?), and the company's impact remains unproven.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Tech Crunch articles ([39][40]) suggest that the subject meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She also seems to be mentioned regularly in major press outlets, even outside of the many mentions she gets in articles about Ellen Pao. Last week Lee's firm was one of the subjects of a New York Times DealBook article where she was quoted. A week before that, her unicorn club article was mentioned in both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. gobonobo + c 03:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Westwood One (current). North America1000 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Country (radio network)

AfDs for this article:
Classic Country (radio 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)

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for seven years. A previous AfD ended with 1 keep, 1 delete, 1 merge. I think a thorough discussion is needed, with hopefully more than 3 people, to finally resolve this. Pinging those who were involved in looking at its notability before: Mrschimpf, DGG, Levdr1lostpassword, Erechtheus. Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Nakon 00:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 (Nom withdrawn) - I never usually close this way but had Dialectric & Boleyn been awake I'm sure they'd of changed there !vote so going out on a limb & speedy keeping it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CutePDF

CutePDF (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)

Unclear notability of what is described as "adware" on list of PDF software and its talk page. Be..anyone (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Ref provided is a how-to article, and only a single independent ref is insufficient to establish notability. A search turned up no further singnificant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Developing Portfolios in Education". pp. 160-.
  2. ^ Schildermans, Jozef (30 March 2011). "Deel 2: CutePDF Professional". Computable.
  3. ^ "Technology: 'CutePDF Writer' is easiest for saving file". Winston-Salem Journal.
  4. ^ "Complete PDF Forms on the Cheap with CutePDF Form Filler". PC World. 13 January 2009.
  5. ^ Shultz, Greg (9 October 2003). "TechRepublic Tutorial: Create your own PDF files for free with CutePDF Printer". Tech Republic.
  6. ^ Scott, Amy. "How to Use CutePDF With a Scanner". Azcentral.com.

Red X I withdraw my nomination , one sentence with eight references is an acceptable stub. Non-admin close as withdrawn isn't possible at the moment, because two contributors supported the deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- GB fan 22:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surin Elephant Round-up

Surin Elephant Round-up (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)

Effectively unsourced promo, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not familiar with how festival can be considered notable. This particular festival has national-level importance (i.e. Thais know about it and have plenty of Thai news coverages) Example from The Nation [47], Bangkok Post [48],[49] Information from Tourism Authority of Thailand [50]. International references are rarer. I can find from Lonely Planet [51], CNN (mention as example) [52], The Independent (one of many trips) [53]. Not sure how much would be enough to establish notability. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some tiny things which may keep this from deletion at the moment. I remember seeing a program about this a few years back so I will be making some efforts to have this kept, please do not close this debate for the next three or four days.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added some content , which was later reviewed by The Banner. I have now added some more and removed the maintenance tags. If hope it is enough for a keep.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree now. The Banner talk 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request speedy close as keep, as nominator So much work done and context added that my concerns are solved. The Banner talk 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rauno Thomas Moss

Rauno Thomas Moss (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)

Has an Estonian-language article, but that is also poorly sourced. Perhaps someone with better Estonian can help. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, so hopefully it can now get a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Foundation

Equality 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)

It has claims to WP:ORG but I couldn't verify them, or establish that it meets WP:GNG. Has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't hit the notability mark, when I search for references I get nothing about them and they are lost in a sea of similar organizations. Not that I'm sure which "Equality foundation" I'm looking for. the external link in the article sends me to a "domain for sale" site. If the foundation gets in the news write a wikinews article about it. if they keep getting in the news and are notable write an article then. for now, delete.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InstaForex

InstaForex (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 evidence of notability NE Ent 09:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, no evidence of anything really since there are no reliable sources. There are 2 reference to the financial regulatory authorities of Belize - which is not known for its financial markets. The first one says they are regulated, the second says that the license has been withdrawn (and is now a deadlink). There is no way we'd even be able to tell if it is still in business. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, clearly created to promote the company. Furthermore we need to nuke these obviously commercial pages even when they do include include sources trying to claim marginal Notability. Alsee (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Greenford. Closing early as most primary schools now get redirected if no notability can be found. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenor Primary School

Ravenor Primary School (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 primary school; PROD removed —teb728 t c 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broadclose House

Broadclose House (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. Pinging those who have looked at its notability before: Jbhunley, Necrothesp. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e deckertalk 02:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iestyn Evans

Iestyn Evans (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 he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7, no reasonable claim of importance DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranuka Hewage

Ranuka Hewage (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:SCHOLAR. —teb728 t c 08:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 08:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatable

Hatable (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PROD removed. —teb728 t c 08:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 procedural close; incorrect forum for a redirect page. The page has been renominated at RfD: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 30. North America1000 13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People's republic of poland

People's republic of poland (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:MOS, bad English Poeticbent talk 05:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 08:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Young (rugby league)

Chris Young (rugby league) (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 rugby league player who no longer meets the WP:RLN guidelines. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear notable and the references are all dead links. Mattlore (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 05:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) Esquivalience t 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y. S. Sharmila

Y. S. Sharmila (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)

During my second look at this article it appears there is nothing to be salvaged. Recommending deletion as subject does not meet any relevant guideline for notability, and is lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 05:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 08:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asharfi Lal Mishra

Asharfi Lal Mishra (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)

Per wp:Notability. Non-notable person, only sources, which editor is now edit warring over, are WP pages, WP:Commons pages, Twitter and Facebook. Likely autobiography. 220 of Borg 05:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7 No assertion of importance in the article. Unremarkable maths teacher. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is document not reliable source?(Teacher1943)
I have found sources from Facbook,twitter & website and also met to Asharfi Lal Mishra in a annual function at Galuwapur Inter College.He is eminent educationists of State Uttar Pradesh,India.If administration is not satisfied please delete it shortly.Thanks.(Teacher1943) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
teacher43 I have told you, more than once, that "Facbook,twitter & website" (personal website that is) are self-published and therefore not reliable sources and so cannot be used on WP as references. 220 of Borg 10:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear gentlemen! I have linked documentary proof ie. A certificate given by state government of Uttar Pradesh,India for "Teacher Award 1998" but not accepted Please tell me option for it. I have linked other many photo groups & certificate but not accepted please tell me suitable & reliable option source. Teachers/educationists are not willing go to media for publicity in India. Educationists are not businessmen.Print media is also under pocket. Please tell me a certificate is reliable or a news paper,photo group is reliable or news paper. According to WP news paper is reliable.It means any degree or any award or any prize has no meaning without approval of print media. and print media is not so fair and its work.At last I have found that according to WP any achievement has no meaning. Dear sir achievements are ornaments of print media.(Teacher 1943) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Please first of all you provide me reliable list of news agency,news papers ,reliable books,reliable scholars.(Teacher1943} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how to find out if a source is reliable or not.--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the question as to whether the award confers enough notability to push its recipient over the notability bar. Le petit fromage (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd.

Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. (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. The apparently impressive refs are less than they look--even the NYT ref is a labelled press release, and the Nature ref is a mere listing among many other companies. They are not on the main board of the NYSE their market symbol , NYSE MKT:CANF, is for NYSE, which is the auxiliary for new companies, formerly known as the American Stock Exchange. Written apparently in the hope that nobody would actually look at their sources. , which is presumably why they omitted the tell-talk stock exchange symbol. It's understandably why they have nothing better to show,since they have no products to market--they have only drugs in phase Ii studies, which will take them years from now, even if they succeed. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal

TalkLocal (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)

Almost entirely advertising. The refs. are either to the company web site or press releases or only mention the company, or are routine notices about funding. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read all the references and a few were trustworthy 2nd parties, but a lot of times they are just references to listings and databases that would have info on nearly any company. I don't see anything notable just seems another company par for the course. Maybe it's horrible but we have articles on plane crashes not planes landing. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly questionable sources, seems best known for raising money. But new companies raising money is nothing new or notable. AlbinoFerret 19:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Articlee is no more of an advertisement than the one on facebook or thumbtack or adobe photoshop... Further most references to how photoshop works would reference the photoshop user manual written by adobe. Further wikipedia policy states that notability is not solley based on a companies popularity. Mynameisdeleted 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the nominator; there is no significant notice outside of advertorial or passing references. There is no discussion of how the business earns its money (nor can I find any information about this on their website or any other site), aside from raising capital investment. On looking at the article history, it is clear that much of the content has been added by single-purpose accounts, including what looks like a company-operated account. The website says it has made over a million calls, but doesn't discuss its success rate in linking people to service providers, so there is no measurement of the success of the company anywhere. It is not discussed in any of the sources, nor could I find any other sources that provided this information. In other words...there's nothing here but promotional material. Risker (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patta Patta Singhan Da Vairi

Patta Patta Singhan Da Vairi (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)

Film that sounds more like a promo page based off of this article Wgolf (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by MusikAnimal as WP:G7, One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Archive

Fox Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia standards (see WP:N and WP:CORP). I can find no coverage of it in any secondary source at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Furthermore, the user who created the page has not edited any other pages, suggesting a strong personal involvement with the topic and a resulting conflict of interest. Lemuellio (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would think that 20th Century Fox would be interested in a site trading on their trademark in a confusing way, unlike the legit Warner Archive Collection. As it is though, this is pretty much an archive.org scraper looking for pageclicks and wrapping ads around them. User has also added links to several articles to film links on their site, undercutting the free archive.org links, which I have removed. Nate • (chatter) 07:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Nakon 00:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chang dance

Chang dance (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)

Term I am trying to find notability for (go figure when I try to find Change Dance all I seem to get is "chang dances") Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or, Merge with Culture of Rajasthan - This is a folk dance that is tied to an annual festival. Found multiple refs for the dance, but I fear the article needs a full rewrite if retained of its own accord mostly because it duplicates the summary section under the "time" and "area" sections. Here is what I found, for anyone that wants to get started:
Note to admin: Incorporated some of my references and rewrote some parts, although half of it remains unclear/redundant. ← scribbleink talk 08:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 06:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter days

Bitter days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
English:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM: I can't find any coverage of this film in reliable sources, only coverage I can find about this film is in self-published sources. Esquivalience t 02:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Original Jordanian title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.  Sandstein  19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranee Campen

Ranee Campen (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 notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable according to the WP:GNG. In-depth interviews have featured in Lisa Weekly[63] and GM[64], both Thai print magazines, as well as Post Today[65], a daily newspaper. Not to mention tons of coverage in celebrity gossip columns in both print and online news publications.[66] --Paul_012 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul_012. She is the leading actress in several TV dramas that is broadcast in 8:15pm-10:45pm primetime slot in TV channel that has number-one rating in Bangkok and number-two rating in upcountry. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight For Bala (film)

The Fight For Bala (film) (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 film lacking non-trivial support. Mentions are passing in nature, very little about the movie. reddogsix (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.  Sandstein  19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Crane

Hilary Crane (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 film actress. She seemed to play a small role in a popular BBC television series. Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dont have a view on notability but the nominator say she has a small role in a popular BBC televison series where the article show a bit more than one show including 33 episodes of Eldorado (TV series) which was a prime time soap in its day. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor rep acting dynasty

Windsor rep acting dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, although of course some of the people named are notable. Appears to be part of a massive WP:COI promotional exercise relating to Brice Stratford, the Owle Schreame Awards, and just about anything connected with them. Numerous WP:SPA accounts are involved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point, but nonetheless, I'm going with keep - it is not just the individuals that are notable; the notable work done through the winsor theatre was done as a family unit, not just separately as a collection of individuals - the press at the (now unaffiliated) theatre's site attests to that.— Feast is Feast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:18, 29 March 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Have just updated the article's references and citations to help support it further. For what it's worth, the peak period of this family and the Windsor repertory company was from the early 1930's to the early 1980's - consequently much of the supporting commentary is not available online. Does this discount it? the phrase "Windsor rep acting dynasty" was first used by John Counsell in his article "So Who Needs Subsidy, Anyway?" (Scottish Theatre, Inverkeithing, Scottish Theatre, Vol.2 No.3, May 1970) and was used regularly in the newspaper reviews (specifically the Windsor Express) and the theatre's programmes throughout the 70's and early 80's.
In terms of the significance of the family as a whole, the book "Counsell's Opinion" (by John Counsell, 1963) discusses it at great length, and the Genealogist's Magazine did a large feature on the family in 2002, connecting them with Hilary Tindall, John Loder and Roy Walker, and then did a follow-up in 2012 connecting them with Brice Stratford, James Stratford and Colin Jeavons. Jean Miller discusses the significance of the family as a whole in various interviews. Here is an illustrative excerpt from an interview with her for the British Library, in case you can't access any of them online:
(Blakely, Emily "Theatre Archive Project: Interview with Jean Miller" British Library 14 May 2008)
Well, my sister was a scenic artist and my brother-in-law was a very famous art director in films ... He was put up for an Oscar for Ryan’s Daughter. He made his name with Genevieve, I don’t suppose you’ve seen it? About the car who goes to Brighton. It’s a wonderful film. Anyway he made his name. He’d just come out of the Air Force when he made it and that was his first and it made his name. He did Fiddler on the Roof, all sorts of films, he worked for Disney, all sorts of things. So Michael acted, my brother-in-law was an art director, my sister was a scenic, my uncle and aunt were actors and directors, my two cousins were on the stage. Then Polly, my youngest daughter was until she had an accident. And her father-in-law - great grandfather-in-law...? grandfather-in-law! - was somebody called John Loder who was an Old Etonian Englishman and he went to Germany and Marlene Dietrich wanted somebody with a dinner jacket. And of course being an Old Etonian he had no money but he had all the right clothes and he was a very good looking man and he went into films, starting with Marlene Dietrich. And then he went to Hollywood and he was very famous but [is] forgotten now. He had five wives and one was the very famous Hedy Lamarr. Does that mean anything to you? It’s like saying he was married to Marilyn Monroe, practically, a very beautiful, sexy woman. So it’s all gone on round me.
Theatre Royal, Windsor(talk) 4:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Theatre Royal, Windsor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
note: user above was a SPA contribs, blocked for violation of username policy [User_talk:Theatre_Royal,_Windsor|here] Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The family was clearly notable at some point, regardless of where they stand now. The article seems justified to me. We shouldn't let Wikipedia get distorted to only represent contemporary subjects, or those which just have a strong modern web presence.WalkingOnTheB(talk) 6:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Regardless of any other factors, the issue in question (as specified above) is solely one of Subject Notability. Let us address this systematically, referring to Wikipedia's notability guidelines throughout.
To establish notability, we must first find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", bearing in mind that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". We must first discount all which is not "independent of the subject" - so out goes anything written by any member of the Counsell family (nominal or extended), as well as anything produced by the Theatre Royal, Windsor itself (such as programme notes). Not that such materials are useless as citation or reference, rather they cannot be relied on specifically to gauge notability.
So what can? "reliable sources ... independent of the subject". Here follows a selection of such sources, with the nature of each source (local, national or international) specified. Each can be considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards, each can be considered independent according to Wikipedia's standards, each example can be considered significant coverage according to Wikipedia's standards, and each references the notability of the family as a unit, rather than a combination of notable individuals:
  • "Repertory Roundabout" Theatre World, Vol. 58, 1962 (national trade publication)
  • "Counsell and Kerridge Once More" The Times, Oct 10th, 1969 (national news)
  • "The Clan Continues" The Windsor Express, June 3rd, 1972 (local news)
  • "Obituary: John Counsell" The Times, February 27th, 1987 (national news)
  • McMullan, Henry. "The Windsor Repertory: an Acting Dynasty" West End & Regional Theatre Press, November 5th, 1989 (local publication)
  • "The New Redgraves? Don't Let Col Hear That!" Black Country Bugle, October 1st, 1998 (local news)
  • Eyre, Richard & Wright, Nicholas. "Changing Stages: A View of British Theatre in the Twentieth Century", Bloomsbury Publishing PLC 5 Nov 2001 (international publication)
  • "The Windsor Dynasty (not that one)" Genealogists' Magazine, 2002 (national journal)
  • Bailey, Jenna. "Can Any Mother Help Me?" Faber & Faber, 5 Aug 2011 (international publication)
  • "The Windsors Revisited" Genealogists' Magazine, 2012 (national journal)
I should point out that this is by no means an exhaustive list, but merely the result of initial research at a physical (rather than digital) university library. This initial, cursory list includes local, national and international publications at trade, academic and journalistic levels. I would also emphasize Wikipedia's guidelines, whereby "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."
Most importantly, I will specify Wikipedia's rule that "Sources do not have to be available online", and that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The significant coverage that this subject received in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's is enough to establish it as notable without any more recent coverage, and the fact that (due to the time of writing) such sources are rarely available online should not discount them or undermine their validity.
I believe that, having established this debate centres on the issue of notability, I have rigorously established that the subject of this article can be considered notable, using Wikipedia's notability guidelines throughout. Therefore, I move to keep. RoodEnd (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note, !vote above is the user's largest edit by far, and the detail is fairly incredible for someone not famiiar with this organization. Has been listed at SPI. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To me the family by itself is not notable. Some of the actors are notable, the theater is notable, but the "dynasty" is not notable. I recommend placing any wikiworthy content into Theatre Royal, Windsor since the dynasty's head was the director there. I think the theatre stub would be improved by a section with some good information on this director and the notable actors that were part of his dynasty.Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would agree that the dynasty by itself do not seem to be of much note currently, but they certainly were in the past; I actually ended up here today because they are discussed in some published parliamentary papers from the 60's that I've been reviewing for work and I wanted to know more. I would slightly disagree with Bryce Carmony (talk)'s suggestion about moving wikiworthy content to Theatre Royal, Windsor, as much of what made the family notable (judging from what I read today) was not just their impact at that particular theatre, but also their work and influence in the west end theatres and (especially) in British provincial touring. It's hard, of course, to judge notability without being biased to our own knowledge, perspective, country and time, but I would say that if the government of the day thought them worthy of discussion and consultation they must have had some notability (I should specify that the references in these papers are primarily to the family's influence in the artistic and managerial infrastructure of nationally touring British theatre, and to a lesser extent on the same in the London west-end theatres. The Theatre Royal, Windsor is mentioned only in passing and is not really relevant to the points made). I think that Bryce Carmony (talk) is perfectly correct though when he says that the Theatre Royal, Windsor article could benefit from a section on the family; however I also think that the family's article could benefit from a section on their impact beyond that specific theatre (and in fact that may make their notability clearer).(edit: in fact, I'll go do that now! Gabby Road (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)) If the consensus does lead to deletion, perhaps a section on the dynasty could be placed at John Counsell (theatre director)? Gabby Road (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note this editor's first edit was sophisticated for a brand new user. all theater/acting related. Listed at SPI Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- perhaps with a better name. I am not sure what "Stratford family" is doing in the category, since beyond a bland statment that they are included, there is not coverage of Bryce Stratford in that article. In my view this is a legitimate category but needs purging: if they are a dynasty, there should be a common ancestor: I would not want to exclude spouses of descendants, but relatives of spouses would be going too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was partly a comment relating to the equivalent CFD discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- The dynasty seems to me to be defined as the relatives of John Counsell (theatre director) or Mary Kerridge involved in acting and related industries, and their relevant spouses. So far as notability goes, that seems fairly well established at this stage. So far as a new name... I dunno. I'm fine with "Windsor rep" acting dynasty - perhaps lengthen to the Windsor Repertory Acting Dynasty? This is the name that coverage refers to. It seems inappropriate to name the dynasty after John Counsell, as Mary Kerridge was just as significant a progenitor (the only difference is that she was a woman). No single surname is shared by enough of the dynasty to give it a real claim. Maybe the Counsell-Kerridge Acting Dynasty (but that's quite a mouthful, and if anything less clear). Elephantbronze (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything about it seems to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had originally performed a non-admin close on this as keep, since the notability requirements of this acting dynasty have clearly been met appeared to have been met at the time of clsoing. However, the nominator informed me that there was an ongoing sock puppet investigation regarding this AfD. In light of these facts, I do not believe it is appropriate for an non-admin to close this AfD, and request that an actual admin take over from here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the key sources for this article are not online, and it is a product of a knot of editors being discussed both at WP:COIN and WP:SPI, This AfD should not be closed until somebody can check the sources to VERIFY the content. I am going to try to get the library Tuesday night to find what I can get. If those sources check out the article can stay. But the title must go. There is no other article with such a title - we have Redgrave family, Dugazon family, Robin Fox family.. no "dynasties". If this survives deletion. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the title is a neologism, self-cited (and conveniently non-viewable) to the theatre itself and to the putative head (John Counsell) of the so-called "dynasty". Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I messed up when I closed this as keep. I have access to numerous journal and news data bases, and after some extensive searches I'm unable to actually find most of the sources listed in the above AfD discussion even though other articles from the time periods and publications come up. For example, "The Windsor Dynasty (not that one)", "The Windsors Revisited" and ""The New Redgraves? Don't Let Col Hear That!" seem to be fictitious. The sources I have been able to find either make only trivial mentions of the Windsors or give extensive coverage to specific individuals instead of the whole family. Also, I find it highly suspicious that that something could get coverage from multiple national journals, but not come up when searched for in JSTOR, Google Book, Google Scholar, and Google News. In light of this, I think the article should be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I have similarly long believed that many/most if not all of the non-viewable citations in the sock farm's other COI articles are similarly and conveniently fictitious. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Jytdog has verified that a specific reference added to two of the COI articles is fake: [69]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Except for Peterkingiron's, every single "Keep" !vote in this AfD (and indeed everyone who has contributed to the article) is part of a massive SPA COI sock/meat farm, either in newly created accounts (some with some diversionary edits), or accounts created June–December 2014 (again, some with varying degrees of diversionary edits). A possible (but at this point not entirely certain) exception is Joseph2302, whose account was created at the time of the others (December 2014) but who either is very determined with his diversionary edits, or who is an innocent but very inexperienced bystander. Softlavender (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_30&oldid=654253822"