Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 25: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:30, 25 April 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 24 April	26 April >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaozhou Vocational Technical School

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

Unnotable school. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent documented at OUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 29 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. Michig (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Perth railway station

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

Railway station proposed in 2009, but never any firm plans to build, can find no references post 2013. Total25 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably an old paper lying in the drawer of someone's office by now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The lack of a station at South Perth has been a political issue ever since they built the line, and as a proposal it's definitely something that has coverage in reliable sources, and probably meets WP:GNG if anyone could be bothered digging through newspaper archives. However, I'm dubious on whether the topic is encyclopedic, and someone seeing it with its own article might assume it had progressed further than it had. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral verging on Support of delete - if sufficient evidence of the paper trail - newspaper refs could show the proposal and the deferment in a number of good substantial references - it verges on passable (in the evidence of the issues or people involved in proposal, and the evidence of deferment) - in its current state, and if it was to stay that way - then I can agree with the Delete proposal satusuro 10:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete whilst there has been some coverage, the fact there is still no commitment to build makes me lean to delete. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about something that atm is unlikely to eventuate. Transasia07 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 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. Davewild (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dixon Elementary School

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

Primary school without clear notability. Jacona (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School is a rare Level 1 public school on the south side of Chicago and was the focus of a documentary, The Curators of Dixon School (2012), because of the school's unique art focused learning environment. There are lots of reliable secondary sources about both the school and the documentary that can be used to expand this page. Kausticgirl (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The fact that the movie may be notable does not make the school notable onless there are WP:RS unrelated to the movie. If you can present WP:RS regarding the educational philosophy/system ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that the documentary would count as a RS towards the school's notability. One RS is generally not enough, although other editors have provided more.Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school has one of the largest collections of African art of the Diaspora outside of a museum and uses that artwork as part of its educational curriculum. Since 1998 they have also hosted an annual art fair call the "Cultural Coonection African Marketplace and Bazaar" where students are able to sell their own artwork while also hosting workshops for the public. Given that the school is also academically successful and not a magnet or charter school I vote Keep since academically-successful, art-based public schools in the inner-city are rare.

Jhurlburt (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school has also been in the news for some criminal activity near it. https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=arthur+dixon+elementary+school+chicago&FORM=HDRSC6. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:05, 30 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, Davewild (talk) 17:53, 3 May 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) 18:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but routine coverage here. Neutrality^talk 03:41, 19 May 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 both--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transilvania International Guitar Festival

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

Neither of these two topics has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:18, 25 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 03:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced.- Andrei (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Both fail GNG because neither of them has any significant independent coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 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) 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robotech Wars

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

No indication of any real word Notability, this isn't wikia or a fansite. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much like many of the Robotech articles, this is just long over detailed plot summary with no real world context or notability. Sources are all either from the work itself or the official website. This is not an encyclopaedic article and is not suitable for wikipedia.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that this is unreferenced and excessive plot summary, it's more important to see what it is: a consolidation of several dozen other smaller, equally unreferenced pages. Take a look at what links here for the article--there are several redirects that point here. Robotech is certainly not near the thriving topic of interest that it was 20 years ago, but we should have SOME content rather than a bunch of redlinks and broken redirects. I don't have the time to clean it up, but in this case, I argue that keeping it in its current broken state is a less bad alternative than deleting it--how many other deletion discussions closed as merge, resulting in those other former articles now pointing to this one? Deleting this undoes all that. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with the reasons for nomination but want to keep it because it's in your words "some content"? Red links are easily removed, so that should never be a factor in keeping an article. the page being the result of merges and deletions is not really an issue, the lack of progress on the article has shown there was a good reason the previous pages would have been acted on in the first place. The series not being a "thriving topic of interest" actually makes it more suitable for this sort of analysis of it's content and there not being any interest is a very good reason to cut back on excessive content which is what articles for both series suffer from. Instead of focusing on long plot summaries across several character, terminology and history articles, the focus should be on the core encyclopaedic content; details about the show and it's premise, it's production and reception. There is no shortage of useful information for these areas without the need to pad them out with this type of content. Articles should provide an overall summary for all types of reader, not detail only a fan would want to read. Wikia exists for that purpose.SephyTheThird (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should take a look at other huge franchises such as Sailor Moon, notice we don't have List of battles in Sailor Moon or the wars involving the Sailor Senshi and Chaos. A wise editor once told me to keep the summaries short and let the reader enjoy the series for themselves, we don't need un-sourced loads of WP:OR BS that tells detailed information down to what Rick Hunter had for breakfast in episode such and such. As for the redirects, I can bet some are very in universe that only fans of the show would understand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- way too long, nothing but plot summary written primarily in an in-universe style, and has no sourcing to speak of. Cruft is cruft and should be deleted, no matter how often it's been shovelled from one place to another. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source here appears to give this in fictional universe wars significant coverage. Also received some coverage in this [2], and [3] Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That book is by a publisher that repackages Wikipedia content, not a reliable source. Reyk _YO! 13:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much in-universe data. Article reads too much as if it is applicable to the real world when it fact only notable to the series itself. If at all possible, a single paragraph under a "Setting" sub-heading could be salvaged somewhere from this....whatever this is. But given the shape of the other articles in this franchise, I don't even know where we'd put that. —Kirt^Message 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the wars involve the characters, I placed the info in the lead section over at List of Robotech characters. No in depth detail, just enough to give the reader what the wars are about to fit them into a better understanding of the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reminds me of TTN's old nominations. Per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia is not a catalog of indiscriminate plot points or synopses. Wikipedia mirrors and trivial mentions are not enough to save this article. It needs significant, real-world coverage from independent reliable sources. This sort of plot-only article belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 23 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I love the article and wish I could vote otherwise. However, except for one reference to a Robotech movie in which Mark Hamill (and which does not expressly discuss the subject of this article), all references are to the Robotech website. Accordingly, there are not authoritative or reliable sources and nothing that demonstrates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 10:43, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frane Selak

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

The story is a hoax Bro(sv) (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received international press interest over a period of several years, which normally makes someone notable. Even if an individual achieves fame through false claims they may still be notable, e.g. Anna Anderson, Princess Caraboo. But it would be nice to find more sources that discuss whether he is a fake: parts of the article are close to original research. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content in the article is about a man who almost died seven times, and I agree that it is absolute relevant. But the truth is that it is about a music teacher who lied to a journalist, it is obvious that the story is fake and that makes the article irrelevant! /Bro(sv) (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By chance, just recently - one year after I raised some doubts in the Selak article's talk page - I've created List of disasters in Croatia by death toll. Now, Selak allegedly survived at least one incident (1963 aircraft crash) that would have easily made that list, but I still could not find anything about it apart from what Selak claims. This is highly suspect. On achieving notability through false claims: no problem with that, but there are apparently no sources that state his claims are false (BBC only goes as far as "not independently verified"), so Selak is not even notable as a hoaxer. GregorB (talk) 09:58, 23 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:17, 25 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) 04:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - given that there was apparently no independent verification of these claims, the WP:SIGCOV standard isn't really met - if we just have detailed assertions and no corroboration, we can't say we have (f)actual details. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while almost certainly a fantasist, he has received coverage across multiple countries, languages and decades, with in-depth coverage and evidence of journalist fact-checking / skepticism. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Future edits to the article should be based on lengthy, skeptical, in-depth sources, as opposed to brief, credulous, sensationalistic sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 5 May 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. Claims of inherent notability need a consensus to support that argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Lauren Glakas

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

This is a vanity page about a beauty pageant contestant that doesn't meet [WP: BASIC]. Of the three sources, one points to a general registry.com page; the other two are articles containing quotes of her responding to a statement made in 2008 and don't make her notable. Chillllls (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Chillllls (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per strong prior AfD precedent. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Hartley for some good "keep" arguments in an identical deletion discussion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:17, 25 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, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as winner of the Miss Virginia Teen USA 1999, Miss Virginia USA 2004, and Miss Virginia 2005 titles, any one of which would be sufficient for notability, and one of just seven women to compete in all three of the related national pageants. - Dravecky (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:53, 6 May 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) 06:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi

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

All sources including in this article appear to be primaries. A quick look on google has revealed nothing other than self-published sources and forum posts. I posit the article fails WP:GNG on this basis. Dolescum (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 19 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree this article seems to have no reliable sources. If some are found, then the article must be completely rewritten, as it reads like a public relations piece. Bill Pollard (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree... looks like a life-long case of self-promotion. Renata (talk) 13:52, 25 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippines national football team hat-tricks

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

Not notable. Does not pass WP:GNG. AndaleCaballo (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of notable people doing a notable achivement. Part of a bigger scheme of hat-tricks by team and could easily be improved to FL status, compare with List of England national football team hat-tricks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the topic can be notable, but is not automatically, and this particular example fails WP:GNG. Also bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 07:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:SAL and then get back to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. That is a MOS guideline about how to lay out these lists, not about their notability. Try and find that and then get back to me. Giant Snowman 12:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LSC, a section on that page, addresses this subject, though this is just an observation on my part; I haven't considered how it might apply here either way. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that such things are notable. These are things that's "if it's notable at X, then it's good enough for Y. In other words, it's apples and apples. Those who are voting for deletion mean any mention of these should be extinguished at Wikipedia. I don't think people meant that; so that's a merge. Is this list and the parent article both long enough to warrant WP:SPLIT? –H T D 12:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is completely wrong, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 13:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I'm not bound to abide by an WP:ESSAY. AFDs need consensus for deletion, no consensus defaults to keep. Articles existing for a long time are perfectly valid precedents. If this has to be deleted, the reasons have to be better than "because other articles have it, but this shouldn't". –H T D 13:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument may be valid or invalid but if a list of hat-tricks done by international players of Australia, Scotland, Belgium, France, Japan and Romania are notable enough to warrant their own article why not by Philippine players isn't. A hat-trick is a notable acchievement. Systemic bias may be in play here since the Philippines isn't one of "football powerhouses". It doesn't matter if an article made by international players of Brazil, Bhutan, Guam or any FIFA member nation is created as long as it is sourced in my opinion which is the case of this article.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:47, 21 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:11, 25 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, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to make of this. On one hand, elevating the England version and deleting the Philippines version feels very much like WP:BIAS. On the other hand, this list looks like synthesis—most, if not all, of the references only support that a given hat trick occurred, rather than discussing the putative topic of Philippine national team hat tricks. The England article is better about this, though a majority of its references seem to only regard a single hat trick. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 6 May 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) 06:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MA.RA

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

I simply couldn't find enough reliable coverage regarding this person. It doesn't help that his name appears to be rather common, so Google is not of much help. If someone can find sources that I may have missed, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if the subject would be notable, WP:TNT applies as the current "article" is basically unintelligible and serves no purposes. Cavarrone 09:37, 24 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this may be useful on another language page, but is of no use here. Further no indication of notability is evident.--Rpclod (talk) 01:55, 25 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) 17:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice (TV series)

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

No indication of notability. The three references lead straight to the network so are not independent of the subject. None of those work anyway. The "official website" doesn't work either. None of the people mentioned as presenting it are notable. And a search for "Ice" and "RTE" produces many mentions of this (which doesn't appear to be related.) Greykit (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:54, 22 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 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references to other than the subject network.--Rpclod (talk) 01:56, 25 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! 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TV Petelin

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

Non-notable local music TV station. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - could be mentioned in the articles Telemach (now provided by Petelin d.o.o.) and Saša Lendero [sl].[4][5] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:59, 22 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 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, much less any indication of notability or reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:58, 25 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 03:50, 3 May 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. Sam Walton (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MedPost Urgent Care

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

Non-notable subsidiary. Only independent ref focuses on parent. PROD removed by editor most of whose edits are to this article. If deleted, redirect to Tenet Healthcare. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is similar to MinuteClinic and Concentra. I've also added additional independent references focusing on MedPost and their expansion plans. Cdjarman (talk) 2:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is shocking that this dinky little walk-in clinic could be considered WP:Notable. Who are we kidding here? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:12, 30 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 03:50, 3 May 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMT Coffee

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

This article has been around for some years without a single good reference. All the references that do exist are internal railway publications and the web-site of British Bakers. Neither robust nor verifiable notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only real in depth coverage is the non-independent 'Million-pound expansion' press release. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NA1000s sources. –Davey2010^Talk 19:58, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 17 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 01:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD withdrawn following improvement of article with valid references. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:01, 25 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 Jonah Jenkins. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Surgeon

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

A band that had only 2 demos and not much else. Either a delete or possibly a redirect to Jonah Jenkins since he is the only one with a page. Wgolf (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jonah Jenkins as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 15 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 01:46, 17 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 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonah Jenkins.--Rpclod (talk) 02:00, 25 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 JustPark. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Stephany

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

I find little independent, substantial coverage of him on my own, falling short of the notability criteria. The large majority of the sources cited in the article (a) are broken links, (b) don't mention his name, (c) identify him only as someone being quoted, (d) have a photo of him standing with Eskinazi, (e) are perfunctory interviews, or (f) are bios that are likely self-submitted to sources with which he has an affiliation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The broken link issue has now been addressed and all links are working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougalbee (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:05, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 17 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 01:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a vanity piece. The accessible references talk about companies not the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JustPark, the company he is CEO of. I can't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, but redirecting is an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 2 May 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. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edenfest

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

One-time event, which appears not to be notable. Notability tag has been there 6 years, feel like it's definitely time to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 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 03:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete event does not have to seem lasting significance or effect, fails WP:NEVENTS. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I attended this event - it was a major event in my formative years. I would like to keep the Wikipedia entry. Why delete history anyway? 4johnny (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be still casting a shadow. Local residents were "still shaking" 16 years later (Toronto Star, 8 August 2012) and it may have affected the prospects for any similar event in the area ever since (AUX.TV, 15 January 2015): Noyster (talk), 18:30, 15 May 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) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the last two entries. I think that there is enough coverage to indicate notability. Plus 55,000 attendees may vaguely remember the event although they may not tell their children.--Rpclod (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT as an event that has enduring historical significance: [6], [7] (scroll down), [8], [9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per arguments in 2 votes above. Earflaps (talk) 00:44, 23 May 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) 21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shreveport Rugby Football Club

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

Not notable. A local Rugby club playing in a small league. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:Sport - as the proposer states, no coverage, unnotable WalkingOnTheB (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines. Besides meeting rugby notability guidlines this team is part of the national association governing rugby. The governing body divides the entire sport regionally so all teams are technically regional in nature under that body. spatms (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speaking as a long-time sports editor and a member of six different sports WikiProjecets, I want to state for the record that no WikiProject is permitted to adopt its own notability guideline for subjects within its scope, such as this one purportedly adopted by WikiProject Rugby Union: WikiProject rugby union notability guidelines. The correct notability guidelines that apply to all companies, clubs, sports teams, and other organizations are WP:ORG and WP:GNG; the purported notability guideline of WP:Rugby Union should be disregarded completely for purposes of this AfD. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 17 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 00:58, 25 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable amateur rugby club team. Subject fails the specific notability guideline for clubs, teams and other organizations per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete lower tier amateur sporting clubs are rarely notable, this one is no different. LibStar (talk) 17:14, 9 May 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) 18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Armstrong

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

Actress with only 3 roles-and when Leprechaun 3 was your biggest role.... On another note this has to be one of the oldest in age articles put up for a AFD that was not a joke (article started in 2002 and surprised nobody ever afd it!) Wgolf (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Two direct-to-video movies and a commercial definitely aren't going to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 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 00:54, 25 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) 04:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:25, 6 May 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. Consensus is that ANT (network) passes the notability guidelines. There is less discussion on ANT+ and I can't be sure on consensus for that article as some editors look not to be discussing both articles, so would say No Consensus for that article but discussion lean towards merging which any editor could boldly do. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANT (network)

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

This page, along with it's child ANT+ do not appear to have any informative purpose, other than to advertise the ANT company's technology. Of note, the ANT company, nor their owner Dynastream, appear to be important enough to have their own pages. If either of these pages were to exist, this page might be worthy for a merge, with significant content cut out. Evidence points towards these pages being maintained by marketing consultants to promote these products.

This may even be a candidate for speedy deletion, however there might be some relevancy for the technology sector given the ubiquitous nature of some of their partners' products (eg Samsung Galaxy phones). I first heard of this technology when my Galaxy tried to update the ANT Radio software. The only information I could find was these wikipedia pages, the company's own pages, and discussions on forums defending the ANT software, comparing its importance to Bluetooth.^[1] (I can't help but notice the defender is "OneCanuck", and this is a Canadian company, but this is mere speculation.)

Such claims of primacy with Bluetooth might be fit for forums, and probably fits in some wikia or other wiki dedicated to computer science.

What is not speculation is that the article's history^[2], featuring heavy initial edits by a now-deleted User:Steven.keeping. Again, we can't be certain this is the same Stephen Keeping that is named as a reference for my ANT technology articles^[3], or that co-founded Ecritech, who claims "Our strengths address the challenges of producing content for hi-tech product promotion" and goes on how their strengths as journalists can help tech companies get articles, like the opinion OpEd linked earlier in this paragraph which was to a journal that Keeping was employed by at one point in time (or at least worked under an email address to their domain).^[4]

We can also take a look at this User Keeping's first edit: [10]. While the initial creation of the page and minor edits (two users, one of them a bot) might have been well intentioned, we see the marketing vocabulary arrive with this user Keeping.

All of this info (and I've only been searching for references for 2 hours) seem to point to a self-serving expansion of this page. I am hard pressed to see this as anything other than a page to promote the company's product, increase brand recognition.

But most pertinent of all, there is a severe lack of verifiable sources to support this page's content, and I am having a hard time thinking of a reason for its existence.

If this can be rewritten (and if someone takes that on before its deleted) consideration should be made for the only major child I could find, ANT+, which still deserves deletion, and at most, a section on the new & improved ANT (network.

For anyone with such re-writing gusto, I would ask you to consider this: why improve this page, instead of working to create an ANT (company) article (exact name of your choosing) that can cover the company's activities as a whole, with this network information as a small subsection, until such time that ANT technology becomes the household name that Bluetooth has become.WildElf (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as blatant advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ANT (network). Low power wireless protocol quite widely used in the wearable sports and health electronics area, with tens of millions of devices using it. Googling for "ANT radio protocol -colony -colonies -wikipedia -thisisant", i.e. ignoring the Dynastream company pages (and ant colonies) produces lots of results for me, from which there seem to be a plenty of articles either on it, or discussing it in depth (and which aren't adverts or written by Dynastream) to demonstrate its notability - e.g.

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) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topics importence is on par with Bluetooth low energy, just the article is not very well written. ANT+ technology is featured in latest smartphones from Samsung and Sony. It is used in heart rate monitors and cycling power meters as only way of data transfer for years, long before BT LE appeared. --Papuass (talk) 13:04, 29 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 03:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep / Merge. This is definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion as there is no consensus and this does not meet the criteria of being a promotion. I don't see where this is written without a neutral point of view and the content is indeed encyclopedic and notable. I do agree that this needs to be written and the two pages, ANT(network) and ANT+ should be merged as ANT+ is not different enough (and does not have enough content) to deserve a separate page. I agree with the examples Papuass gives above and offer recent news references which contributes to this topic's notability. I also offer the [What links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/ANT_(network)] page which shows a number of other pages linking to ANT.
Speedy. The page is presently little more than product lists and links to one manufacturer's webpages, exactly as proscribed in WP:5P1. ANT is emerging in a similar way to Bluetooth, with one company (Dynastream Innovations) gate-keeping access to the technology details, much as Ericsson did with Bluetooth. It is not the widening adoption of ANT+ to "household name" that will make it fit for a Wikipedia entry or the reduction of marketing language, but the unrestricted availability of the underlying information Dynastream control; ANT+ deserves a Wikipedia entry and I'm sure it will have one when the copyright holders eventually permit it.Jskaife (talk) 14:53, 12 May 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! 14:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is certainly notable per all the references above. PianoDan (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable as per refs in article and turned up here. We prefer to fix, not delete articles so WP:COI is not usually a valid reason for deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 20 May 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 Rubik's Cube#Variations. Clear consensus that this should not be kept, but a valid redirect target was found. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik's V Cube

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

WP:FORK of articles on the various V Cube models, rightly tagged for WP:POV problems (it's essentially an attack). Even if all models were rolled into one article, it wouldn't be this misnamed thing. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POV duplicate of V-Cube 6 and V-Cube 7, with rather significant chunks of text copied across. The most prominent part not copied is claiming Verdes was called "cruel" and accused use of "patent loopholes", which without reliable sources is akin to straight-up attack. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 17 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 00:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rubik's Cube#Variations. Would say merge, but present content is unsuitable OR and ranting. Pax 09:19, 30 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) 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NetillaOS NetConnect by Northbridge Secure Systems (Secure Remote Access SSL VPN)

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

Not particularly notable. Searches on Google and DuckDuckGo yielded no reviews or mentions from reliable sources (except from a Times of India directory page which is basically a copy of Category:Remote desktop). Generally seems like an advertisement. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 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) 05:04, 17 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 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Looking around for reviews I'm not finding anything. Without independent WP:RS I can't see how this passes WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:47, 26 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) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral spin valve

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

a) page provides no information not provided on the wikipedia Spin valve article which is already more detailed and complete. The only source in the "lateral spin valve" article can't be retrieved.

b) lateral spin valves are a type of spin valve and do not merit a separate article. At most they merit a subsection in the spin valve article. There is very little difference between a lateral spin valve and a "regular" spin valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.130 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 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) 05:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A10 seems in order. Tigraan (talk) 10:20, 17 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 00:46, 25 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) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indrani Krishna

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

Falls below the standard required by the General notability guideline. No sources found beyond the single news story, which indicates that the subject is a low-profile individual who is likely to remain so. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - winning a college debate competition is not enough to meet GNG. No other claim to fame. -Zanhe (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page may have been vandalized recently. I'm not sure that blanking the page was the appropriate action. See: Diff JeremiahY (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the edit summary it looks like the editor concerned was acting in good faith in removing the personal puff piece rather than vandalising the article. It has no bearing on the AfD outcome since all the info removed was unsourced, which is acceptable under Wikipedia biographies of living people policy. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. I'm still not completely up to speed on AfD policies. I only found this page as it was flagged for CE by GOCE. JeremiahY (talk) 07:38, 24 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 00:41, 25 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) 04:09, 3 May 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) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Jules Ginet

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

As stated by Azurfrog on the talk page, source 1 doesn't mention Ginet, 'Pâtisserie of Tomorrow: The Who’s Who' doesn't exist as far as I or Azurfrog can establish, and there is no indication of notability, coupled with no reliable sources available on the internet that I can see. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Secondary sources are weak, to say the least. Moreover, I just could not find any mention of this Fauchon: Study of a Modern Pâtisserie outside of Wikipedia. Strikes me as an advertisement page/original research to support the nascent notability of this self-proclaimed "world expert on the macaron". --Azurfrog (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 17 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 00:41, 25 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) 04:08, 3 May 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Danielson

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

Contested prod. Minor bit part actress with no real claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion and respect for other individual opinions on here, "minor bit actress" would be someone such as an extra in a movie or television series, one time appearance in a background camera shot, etc. They're are several references confirming that this actress is a starring lead role actress in the movie "Muck" and she has been credited as a starring lead role actress in other movies as well. She is a lead actress in the movie "Snow" and it's sequels. I am requesting that the page be allowed to grow and not be deleted.--Groulsom (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Groulsom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The page has a lot of good sources!--Wetmnt1 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Wetmnt1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note the previous two entries are made by SPA accounts who seem to have a strong interest in promoting the same small group of related articles. IMHO they are very obviously meatpuppets since both rose from dormancy at the same exact time. Ridernyc (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reviewed this article and I feel the article seems to be in order. I can not fined any clear reason why the article should be deleted. --Scantunl (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's time to start a sockpuppet investigation. Ridernyc (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Ridernyc Have you read Wikipedia's civility policy? The term sockpuppet, meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care. It is clear from my edits and post on the original page that I have been improving this page long before you posted a delete notice on it. Before you call me a name will you provide the proof! I didn't just pop out of thin air like you have claimed. You may get this page deleted if you try hard enough but lets do it for the right reasons, so can you please explain in detail why you feel there's no notability. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hysterical, yes I know policy please see WP:DUCK it's is blatantly obvious your actions and the actions of the others are linked. Ridernyc (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridernyc could have handled things a little more discreetly and/or diplomatically, but it's not really against policy to voice concerns of sockpuppetry in an AfD. Basically what he's concerned about (the proof) is that you (Wetmnt1) and Groulsom have only edited Wikipedia on things concerning Danielson. Your account was the first that was created and you made the article, but you have no other edits to show that you are here to do anything other than edit about Danielson. Where the concern with sockpuppetry comes in is that Groulsom's account was created a few days after the article was proposed for deletion and they removed the tag. Since the two of you have only made edits concerning this one article, it's a reasonable assumption to suspect that you are either the same person or that you are people that have contact with one another off of Wikipedia that are editing the article. Now if you're sockpuppets (ie, one person) then that's a block straight out of the gate if a check shows that you are the same person (there are ways to check for this). However if you are different people then there may be a little wiggle room here. If you were both asked to come here and edit the article then all you have to do is state up front that the two of you knew each other off Wikipedia and/or were asked by someone (Danielson, her representative) to create the article. Now if you were asked to create the article (like if you were part of a PR or freelance job) then you will also need to state this up front. You can still edit if you have a conflict of interest, but you absolutely must be transparent about this. The same thing goes for if you are part of a group trying to edit a page. You can be blocked for meatpuppetry but this sort of block usually ends up getting made because the accounts were just there to stuff ballots rather than to try to get a concentrated effort to genuinely improve a page based on policy and learn to edit based on policy. In most cases a "meatpuppet" will not argue for a keep based on policy and will not try to learn these policies enough to try to genuinely improve the article. (IE, they'll try to twist policy around based on a small criteria despite several editors saying otherwise.) There's a lot more to it than this and this is already too long as it is, but basically at this point the best thing to do is to be transparent about everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to here is show how Danielson's roles are notable. Minor parts are pretty much considered to be any role that is not a main character and has not received coverage in reliable sources. For example, if someone played a character that was not in a large portion of the film and is not mentioned in reviews for the movie (other than a routine listing of cast) then that will not show notability. Be careful about using news sources that were fairly heavily based on press releases since those tend to be greatly depreciated at AfD. Primary sources (things released by Danielson, a crew member, or anyone affiliated with her or the films she was in) will not give notability either. (WP:PRIMARY) You need sources that discuss Danielson in depth and reviews that will mention her performance. If she was a minor character (like a character that dies 20 minutes into the film) but gets a mention in a review then that would still help show notability. However be careful- if a film is not notable on Wikipedia then these roles probably won't do anything at all even if she was a main character. Basically just being in a film is not enough to show notability- you have to show that these appearances are notable with coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should be added here is this is just one of several articles I have discovered all related to Benetone Hillin Entertainment, all created by a small group of SPAs and the ones that fail the GNG all have similar things happening at AFD [11]. I think the this might be the tip of a much much larger iceberg. Ridernyc (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokogirl79, Thank you for your input on here, it's very much appreciated. I understand his concern, but I am not affiliated with anyone on here or the actress. I am not involved in some large conspiracy network like Rydernyc has suggested. Thanks again for improving the article. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

may we ask what your inspiration to register and create this article was? Ridernyc (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My media sweeps did not find much of what could be considered sources, although what I find interesting is the rather substantial pageviews counts (about a hundred a day), plus lots of image consistency (reasoning: when lots of images are of the same person, it is a sign that they're in the public eye) -- my unofficial tests of notability of course (which she passes), so I am somewhat on the fence. Wikipedia's tests of notability, well, I did not see much in terms of in-depth sources, independent, just mentions of her performances here and there. So the current article is mostly unsourced. So I am leaning to delete, could be persuaded if better sources are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 23 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) 00:40, 25 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) 04:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - don't see much notability here. What am I missing? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Please see below. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 May 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, Monty ₈₄₅ 17:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability or of significant roles, does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I still don't see any reason for notability, and no changes to the article since April 25th. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - YouTube videos and unreliable sources do not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:20, 15 May 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 Business Recorder. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Recorder Group

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Search on Google News shows no relevant articles. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 07:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Business Recorder as obviously that's their notable flagship service and notability is not inherited to the org. Info such as ownership of AAJ TV by the same corp and a minimal list of other ventures (if verifiable per WP:ABOUTSELF) needs to be preserved into the Business Recorder article. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. It certainly has no WP:Notability by itself. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:56, 23 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 00:38, 25 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 03:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with Business Recorder--I think it's still up for discussion whether there's anything in this article worth saving (as it's unsourced). Article definitely fails WP:GNG by itself. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:08, 10 May 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luigino Longo

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

A poorly-referenced biography which has fallen through the cracks since 2002. I've added one news source, but there seems to be nothing on the web about his later career. Therefore I think the subject fails WP:BLP1E. John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 17 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) 00:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreating this with more sources. There may be a language barrier issue in finding sources, but there needs to be more verification for this BLP, especially since the subject seems controversial. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 1 May 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) 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veera Brahmam Gari Matham, Vijayanagaram

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

WP:Unreferenced, WP:NOTABILITY Vin09 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 17 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) 00:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly constructed article, but the topic seems to be Notable. You find better info in a search by not using the word "Vijayanagaram," which is a geographic location. Needs better sourcing, and it's already marked as such. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile:You find better info in a search by not using the word "Vijayanagaram," which is a geographic location. Brahmamgari Matham article already exits in wikipedia.--Vin09 (talk) 07:36, 30 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, Davewild (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced article about an indeterminate topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, not about a notable subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:30, 10 May 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. All seem to agree that this is better covered at Wiktionary, where it is already defined. Sandstein 08:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptor (accounting)

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

Looks like just a word/term definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to transwiki to Wiktionary? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea; in fact the accounting definition is already in the Wiktionary entry for acceptor. --Mark viking (talk) 00:50, 18 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 00:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in as an acceptor of this suggestion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 25 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 06:30, 5 May 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. slakr^\ talk / 18:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldo Martini

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Apparently non-notable painter of pseudo-classical portraits. There's no indication of notability in the article, nor does a search (Oxford Reference, Grove, Benezit, JSTOR etc) turn up anything at all. He had a retrospective at the Galerie Selano in Geneva in 1993; the catalogue is listed by several book sites. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Vivaldo Martini is famous in Swiss and one of his picture is in a French museum. And many other wiki (french, portuguese, russian) have accepted an article of Vivaldo Martini. Friendly Glavior (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ I'm not agree about deletion of this article, because Vivaldo Martini had many expositions through the world. And this article is in work in progress. So let the wiki's community develop this page. Homeristan (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above (only one is allowed). The user has provided another keep !vote below that also provides sources for consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep for a lot reasons : picture in a museum, expositions, books. So notable for me. Soniqueboum (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Glavior, Homeristan, Soniqueboum, please understand that this is not a vote. If you believe that the article should be kept, please show that Martini is notable by citing a good number of reliable sources with in-depth coverage of him and his achievements. I have already searched in vain for such sources; perhaps you will have more luck. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers, Vivaldo Martini^[1] is famous for his woman portraits and post cubist compositions^[2]. Vivaldo Martini is not a great famous painter but in Swiss is also famous as Augusto Giacometti, Albert Schmidt or Richard Pirl. He was a paint teacher too. He formed a lot of artist like Vanya Ferrara^[3] Jean-Pierre Colinge or Genevieve Paris^[4]. There's one book named Vivaldo Martini 1908-1990. Peintures‎ printed in 1993 with 158 pages. One paint of Vivaldo Martini is exposed in a French museum and one other is in the Javier Mendez's collection in Spain^[5]. And one picture is in the Centre d'iconographie genevoise at Geneva^[6]. Soniqueboum (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

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) 00:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this about the picture named Phaedra and Ariadne griffin at Knossos palace. It's in a book about Ariadne^[1]Soniqueboum (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.booksllc.net/sw2.cfm?q=Ariadne

Soniqueboum, that "book" is a copy of our article on Ariadne (click at lower right where it says "Source"), and that rather famous painting is by Titian. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, on this article, there's a line about Vivaldo Martini (at the bottom). And gere a pic of this paint : http://images.delcampe.com/img_large/auction/000/173/884/640_001.jpg?v=4

And I found on Department of State news letter, number 93 at 104 on page 37, Vivaldo Martini was members of the Geneva artist mission at 1968 with Henry Meylan to promove Geneva Arts^[1]. At this occasion, Vivaldo Martini gave a portrait of Robert Kennedy to Ambassador Roger Tubby^[2]Soniqueboum (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep it thanks for the informations! Griolin (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)— Griolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The source between Vanya Ferrara and Vivaldo Martini exists. It's in French, sorry for english speaking only. Soniqueboum (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About serial portraits, the source is reliable. It's in French... Soniqueboum (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For Swiss visual artists, the extent of their coverage in the selective biographical database SIKART is a very good indicator of notability. SIKART covers artists with a "documentation level" of 1 to 5 depending on their importance. In this case, Martini is not even indexed in SIKART, which indicates that he has had about zero impact on the Swiss art scene. Lacking other sources that would make him pass WP:GNG, it's a relatively clear-cut matter. Sandstein 09:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because a monthly swiss art magazine (Tribune des arts) had written an long article on Vivaldo Martini and his works in 1993. The title is L'oeuvre secrète de Martini : un grand portraitiste retrouvé à Genève (Vivaldo Martini's secret work : a great portraitist found in Geneva)^[1] And more, in Benezit Dictionary of Artists edited by Oxford Oxford University Press there's an article about Vivaldo Martini ^[2]^[3]. So Vivaldo Martini is a notable artist. Homeristan (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.worldcat.org/title/oeuvre-secrete-de-martini-un-grand-portraitiste-retrouve-a-geneve/oclc/716338638
^ http://www.worldcat.org/title/martini-vivaldo/oclc/5695813267&referer=brief_results
^ Resume of Benezit article: Swiss, 20th century, male.Born 1908, in Bellinzona (Ticino); died 1990, in Geneva.Painter. Figures, portraits, landscapes.Vivaldo Martini studied at the fine arts academies of Bologna and Geneva and went on to exhibit mainly in Italy, Germany and Switzerland, but also in Israel. He is noted for his countless portraits of people, both famous and otherwise. Along with his portraiture, he produced a body of...

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers apparently Vivaldo Martini is notable painter of portraits. Now there's one important indication of notability (an article on Benezit). Soniqueboum (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one verifiable painting in a museum is not in a art museum, but is in a museum of musical instruments as a portrait of an instrument maker. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem about that, Musée de la lutherie et de l'archèterie française is a French official museum and music is a form of art. And Vivaldo Martini's works were in a lot of catalogs^[1] · ^[2]Homeristan (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

== Notability ==

This painter respect General notability guideline with verifiable evidence, multiple secondary source (one important is benezit). Soniqueboum (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with all elements given. This painter seems to be notable. Kourosse (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom has probably noticed this, but some keep votes are coming from newly minted accounts. Probably a good idea to check for sock puppets. LaMona (talk) 01:23, 11 May 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 Cormorant Township, Becker County, Minnesota. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duke the Dog

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

A dog that became honorary mayor of a township. Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT: no in-depth coverage, no lasting effects, news sources all from the same day. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cormorant Township, Becker County, Minnesota, which presently has no mention of this. This is a functional WP:ATD that will enhance the township article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is NEW article (OTHER article if compare to old article that the same name and have been deleted)! This is about the dog who won mayor election, all Wiki formalized critreious: as WP:IS or WP:N both are presents. Please excuse me for possible mistakes because English isn't my native

--Golodg (talk) 15:22, 17 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) 00:34, 25 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) 04:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Agree with Northamerica1000 that this makes sense to include at Cormorant Township, Becker County, Minnesota, but there just isn't the enduring coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG (or, um, WP:NPOLITICIAN?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- As I already said about before and now I can add only that WP:GNG will be passed because the main category for this article is Category:Animals_in_politics. There a very limited list of animals in politics not only for some nation, but also worldwide! --Golodg (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist, there is almost a consensus. Esquivalience ^t 04:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 04:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to town - I'm sure Duke will be the best mayor that town has ever had, but there are only 12 people there. And for some reason they had to pay to vote? Regardless of the rarity it needs long-term coverage and I don't see any. They need to get Duke a book deal asap like Saucisse. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: according to our article, the township actually has 1039 inhabitants. I'm not sure where the difference comes from. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertyus that is strange. But the WP article is about the "township" and the CBS article refers to it as a village ("Voters in Cormorant elected a dog named Duke by a landslide. The 12 people in the village each paid $1 to cast a vote."). Maybe the majority of the township is unincorporated and that could account for the difference. But the $1 is really weird - I don't think a "vote tax" is legal. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:48, 10 May 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. The Delete !votes are pretty much "not notable" without explanation and without addressing the sourcing unearthed by Satellizer ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kern

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

Doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. In its current state, the only information in here is that he used to work on World of Warcraft and that he used to work on Firefall. I'm not sure what could go into this article that couldn't be added to the articles on Firefall or World of Warcraft. Breadblade (talk) 16:51, 17 April 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) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this person has received quite a bit of coverage by reliable sources, such as

Mark Kern reportedly fired from his job as CEO of Red 5 Studios, Gamasutra

Mark Kern addresses his departure from Red 5 Studios, Engadget

The rise and fall of Mark Kern: how one man may have doomed Firefall and The9 (UPDATED), TechInAsia

Red 5 co-founder Mark Kern steps down as CEO, VG247

Firefall dev CEO apologises for open beta woes, VG247

Kern: MMO noob zones cost about $430K per gameplay hour, VG247

Firefall boss feels MMO developers have “killed a genre” by catering to accessibility over achievement, VG247

Red 5 boss calls console model “broken”, “dead”, VG247

The last three sources I feel are especially interesting and can be used to write about his views on video gaming. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're right that there isn't much that wouldn't also fit into other articles, but there is additionally enough coverage about his own views as a public figure to warrant his own article. There's actually enough from Engadget alone (and there are plenty more hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, though many are duplicate coverage). czar ⨹ 02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not one source for his career history.--SimpleStitch (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Un-notable. Are we supposed to have a wiki page for every employee of every company in the world? Apparently the most exciting thing he's done is get fired, and plenty of people don't have pages for being fired.81.104.217.234 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the aforementioned links? Specifically the Engadget link to their category of Kern-focused articles? czar ⨹ 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough sources for career history, not notable enough to be mentioned on the World of Warcraft page or any other game's pages except for Firefall.--Frybread (talk) 18:20, 24 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) 00:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kern apparently has some involvement in the Gamergate controversy, which attracted attention from VG247. Maybe all this ad up to notability? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 29 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, Davewild (talk) 08:13, 4 May 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. Soft Deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derketo (Conan)

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

Character from the Conan series that was barley ever used at all-probably a redirect or merge be the best for her. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added some words to article about character being in a mmorpg and so added to wikiproject videgames deletion list. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 23 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) 00:32, 25 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) 04:03, 3 May 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. Michig (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Khmer Studies

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

Despite the fancy name, I don't see anything that indicates notability, as expressed through independent sources. This doesn't mention the center, and is the only functioning link. Google largely turns up announcements made by the institution itself. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is currently sourced only to its own web site and to deadlinks elsewhere. And it is part of a problematic cluster of articles together with Lois de Menil (whose AfD is overrun by puppets) and George de Menil (deleted after recent AfD, G4 speedy declined by DGG). But I found two sources that look independent, reliable, and in-depth enough to support WP:GNG and WP:ORG: an article in the Phnom Penh Post and a post on the official blog of the US Ambassador.—David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update, George de Menil article kept, at least for now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:David Eppstein, and this [12] (believe it or not, the NYTimes fact-checks the wedding announcements aggressively to make sure claims of affiliation are both notable and verifiable. Few news columns are as aggressively fact-ckecked as the weddings page, as I understand it, groomsmen are prone to sending in hoax affiliations, and mothers-of-the bride exaggerate - plus it's intensely read. Therefore the Times puts staff hours into it). E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, sure, the Center exists, but quoting that would be like using a wedding announcement to document the existence of, say, the Heritage Foundation or the Brookings Institute. In other words, it's not an especially quotable source. And what is truly indicative (at least for me) about this institution's lack of notability is its seemingly total absence from academic sources (other than the announcements I mentioned). You'd think an entity funded by Americans and registered in the US, that deals with a field (Cambodia Studies) not entirely neglected there would have some impact on the American academic landscape, but no. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds reasonable, but reasonable does not always apply in area studies, fields where internecine bickering can make even the darkest corners of WP editing look collegial. I don't even know that the name of the organization has been constant, or there isn't some variation to how the name is cited that would make work done there easy to find for someone actually in Cambodian studies (a highly politicized field). In fact the problem with this AFD is that there is very little RS on this outfit, but the sources that do exist (cited by User Eppstein) are highly reliable. (I don't mean the wedding thing in the Tiems, I didn't propose adding that to page, I only brought it here because there is so little, and yet, what there is looks sound.) At the very least, we know that this organization exists and has a location in Siem Reap, a town that is a mecca both for serious scholarship and for the very, very rich - not only because it has some of the world's highest-end hotels, but because it is a pet historic rescue project of choice for the world's very,very rich. Who may, at times, work better with the notoriously corrrupt authorities of Cambodia by keeping projects under the radar. I just don't know.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are lots of the type of mentions/thanks for use of the Center in the course of research that one would expect to find in the forwards of books on Cambodia. Confirms that this is a locus of scholarly work on the region in all fields.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a simple search on books google produces a plethora of confirmation. Citations to papers published by the Center, conferences held. It will remove all doubts re:notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 20 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 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional refs: 1/"Center for Khmer Studies Junior Fellowship Program in Cambodia" University of Chicago] [13] which says "The Center for Khmer Studies (CKS) and Henry Luce Foundation seek to introduce undergraduate students to Cambodia and Khmer civilization. " the Luce foundation, is a highly respectable organization referred to in a number of WP articles--we need an article on them. . 2/ "Center For Khmer Studies Summer Junior Fellowship Application 2014" Sciences Po. [14] (the most impt French university in social sciences. It already has : "Center for Khymer Studies - Supporting research in Cambodia" Official Blog of WilliamE. Todd,US Ambassador to Cambodia [15]

In addition, WorldCat shows it has published a number of books & held a number of seminars [16] . DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 25 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The One (series 1)

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

Non-notable season of a series. The series does not have its own article on Wikipedia, and I can't find sourcing on the season or the series. It appears that the series exists (I found Youtube videos mentioning it). Also, some of the refs on this article refer to The X Factor New Zealand, which does not seem related to this show. Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bundling The One (series 2), as the 2nd season of this non-notable series.

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge the notability, but it has quite a smell of advertising. The Banner talk 00:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable in NZ NealeFamily (talk) 01:33, 22 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 00:32, 25 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) 04:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent, non-trivial mentions to pass ISGCOV. Most citations are merely promotional and do not establish notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:21, 14 May 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ismet Jashari

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

A non notable person with a notability tag since 2008. The only reference on the page is a 404 error and I cannot find any additional sources on the person. Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person was one of the main KLA leaders. Streets in Kosovo are named after him.^[1]

^ [1]

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) 00:32, 25 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) 04:01, 3 May 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 23:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pierce

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

A Google search turned up nothing proving WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 17 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) 00:32, 25 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) 04:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, not having enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage at all. Fails GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SATMAP, Inc.

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

This article is based on regurgitated press releases and PR pieces. In the Highbeam Research alleged reference is a press release. There are references to Gartner, these are behind a paywall, not a drawback in itself, but difficult to verify. There is no asserted and certainly no verified notability here. Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 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) 00:31, 25 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 03:55, 3 May 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. The discussion is leaning keep, but due to a lack of participation, closing as no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Indian Ocean Cable Company

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

An wholesaler of telecomms and internet connectivity. Little evidence of notability but any case is a specialised company like this of interest in a general encyclopedia? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 17 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) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as something a general interest encyclopedia should cover. Appears to be notable enough. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- per significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:33, 30 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 03:56, 3 May 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) 00:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Allied Freedom Fighters

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

BLP material without sources DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete Hardly readable,not notable, very biased, zero sourcing of any kind.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent, and the claimed details are highly unlikely. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2014 Ninoy Aquino International Airport bombing plot. Potentially a terrorist organization, but the question is WP:ORG & WP:GNG. Subject has received coverage of various depth from multiple reliable sources in the Philippines including the Philippine Star, ABS-CBN News, and others. But further inspection of the sources, show that they are primarily regarding a foiled bombing plot, with the organization and "chief of staff" of the organization almost all mentioned in any depth in relation to the foiled bombing plot. The bombing plot itself, has received significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:EVENT, including from sources outside of the Philippines in CNN, Reuters, Breitbart, International Business Times, and Gulf News. Therefore, as the organization is known primarily for a single event, WP:BLP1E could be construed to suggest a redirect to an article about the foiled plot would be the best result for the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a red link? Are you serious? Kraxler (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why not? The event which this organization has received passing coverage has received significant coverage in its own right, sufficient to pass WP:PERSISTENT. Therefore, the event, which does not have an article yet created, is notable. And unless this organization is notable for anything else other than than plot, than it falls under WP:BLP1E or something similar.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE "And why not?" - Because of G8, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page and Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #7. Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources primary subject is the bomb plot, and it clearly meets WP:EVENT. The subject of this AfD has received multiple mentions in relations to the notable event, and thus is a related term. Whether the organization meets WP:ORG IMHO is not the question, but it is the fact that it is only notable for a single notable event, and thus should be redirected to that event (an article that should be created).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, create the article first, and then advocate something to be redirected to it. Please do not put the cart before the horse. Kraxler (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVASS#appropriate notification, I will inform WP:PINOY. As there maybe some local editors, they can shed light on the situation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:42, 6 May 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) 18:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Taurus

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

Search for WP:RS came up empty; notability warning produced no response. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, was also deleted in German Wikipedia. Delete --NiTen (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and lacks Reliable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:43, 2 May 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.

[1] "Growing coffee chain full of beans". Yorkshire Post.

[2] "AMT Coffee poised for expansion". Oxford Mail.

[3] "Brewing up a healthy fortune". Financial Times.

[4] City of York Council approve AMT Coffee's application to transform York railway station's waiting room into a mobile coffee kiosk. The Press.

[5] "AMT Coffee reports 5.3% rise in LFL". British Baker magazine.

[6] "AMT Coffee installs contactless payment nationwide". Computerworld UK.

[7] New coffee shop opens in arrivals area in Terminal 1. Irish Independent. (short article)

[8] ttp://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2483533

[9] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ANT_%28network%29&dir=prev&action=history

[10] ttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mFIdx4v3GDAJ:https://www.nordicsemi.com/content/download/53092/898803+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[11] ttp://www.ecritech.com/index.php?page=about&style=1

[12] ttp://www.galerie-selano.com/Martini/martini.htm

[13] ttp://denyslouiscolaux2.skynetblogs.be/archives/2013/12/index-1.html

[14] ttp://www.bellini-art.com/artferrarafr.htm

[15] ttp://lespeintreslafma.canalblog.com/archives/2014/01/09/28907016.html

[16] ttp://collectiondartjaviermendez.fr.gd/Peinture-Suisse.htm

[17] ttp://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/bge/cig/result.php?ret=authors&letter=M&adv_auteur=Vivaldo+Martini

[18] ttp://www.booksllc.net/sw2.cfm?q=Ariadne

[19] Department of State news letter, number 93 at 104 on page 37

[20] Foreign Service Journal, Volume 45 1968 page 27

[21] ttp://www.worldcat.org/title/oeuvre-secrete-de-martini-un-grand-portraitiste-retrouve-a-geneve/oclc/716338638

[22] ttp://www.worldcat.org/title/martini-vivaldo/oclc/5695813267&referer=brief_results

[23] Resume of Benezit article: Swiss, 20th century, male.Born 1908, in Bellinzona (Ticino); died 1990, in Geneva.Painter. Figures, portraits, landscapes.Vivaldo Martini studied at the fine arts academies of Bologna and Geneva and went on to exhibit mainly in Italy, Germany and Switzerland, but also in Israel. He is noted for his countless portraits of people, both famous and otherwise. Along with his portraiture, he produced a body of...

[24] ttp://www.edouardreymond.ch/vente/catalogue/catalogue_sel101002.html

[25] ttp://www.moinat.net/tableau-huile-sur-panneau-moderne-signe-vivaldo-martini-epoque-20eme-siecle-ref-12006-fr

[26] [1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaozhou Vocational Technical School}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Perth railway station}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Dixon Elementary School}}