Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 April	3 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

This project page was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2015. The result of the discussion was snow keep.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Biography NA‑class

	Biography portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Medicine: Society NA‑class

	Medicine portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by the Society and Medicine task force.

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Romania NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles

NA

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Help Romania reach at least GA-status
- Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD
- Request an article or create a missing one
Assess :
- Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality
Cleanup :
- Review the Romania-related cleanup listing
- Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia
Disambiguation :
- Disambiguate project articles and get points
Expand :
- Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania
Translate :
- Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia
- Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian)
Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara.
Other :
- Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site)
- Review newly created Romania-related articles
- Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items
- Create Awards for WikiProject Romania
- Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks

Toma Ciorbă

Reason for deletion

Non-notable individual. One physician like many other around the world. Probably he is known, or even notorious on local geographical area, but globally, definitely he's not notable. Also, from the only 2 sources the first one does not count as it is the website of the hospital which is named after this individual. So it's not reliably third-party published source.

94.102.49.88 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IP editor above transcluded this talk page to the daily AfD log. I've copied this text to a proper AfD discussion page as per the IP's obvious intent. --Finngall ^talk 20:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Optical (DJ)

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

WP:NN businessman and Record producer fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. WP:MUSIC doesn't mention folks on the business side like him. The Dissident Aggressor 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that his label, Virus Recordings is also being considered for deletion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the time being notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO has not been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ogre You Asshole. Done the redirect, merge what is worthwhile Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st Demo

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

Okay for some reason the first time it didn't go through and I'll try it again-contested prod of a unotable album Wgolf (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and now it appears twice on the AFD page....Wgolf (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the second appearance. When something like that happens, you can just edit the daily log to fix it. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ogre You Asshole. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 & all that lovely stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanush 2

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

~~Non notable film that I remember being deleted before for this page-oddly it says coming April 2014 and being not out yet.... Wgolf (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)~~ withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALT: WP:INDAFD: Amanush 2

Keep (with release date now removed through regular editing) Former versions aside, Times of India tells us it has completed filming, and searches shows production has coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3)[1]. It's time has finally come. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per MichaelQSchmidt and per these [2][3][4][5][6][7], Was BEFORE not followed?, I'm lazy when it comes to finding sources but even I found some..... –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-Okay it is odd since I could of swore this was afd, maybe it was a prod or something I don't know. Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brocagh Emmetts GAC

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

Unsourced article, tagged as such since March 2013. Subject is an athletic club based in the Irish village of Brocagh, which is a red link. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate sources for this article, but were unsuccessful. Recommending deletion as the subject does not meet general notability and is lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The club does appear to exist, but no coverage in reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, could be a self-published book for all we know from the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik.P

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

I can't find enough coverages in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The subject is an author of a non-notable book, hence fails WP:AUTHOR. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a Indian Government bureaucrat has written his first fiction novel in 2015 and fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable sources, fails on WP:AUTHOR. Hitro talk 19:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom! (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Cited ref is a press release, and I can't find any independent sources. —teb728 t c 18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. I can't find independent, reliable sources to stand up the claims in the article. Just Chilling (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG I can only find a single independent source (PR Newswire) but I don't view a single treating of the subject substantial. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's even worse than that; the PR Newswire report is simply a reprint of a company press release and doesn't contain any creative editorial content so I would argue that it is not an independent source. Just Chilling (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it, and the yahoo finance is just aggregated on the PR newswire so really there isn't anything in the way of secondary source. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 20:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Böszörményi Zoltán

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

Fails WP:GNG.. sources seem self published JMHamo (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly worth noting wiki articles in Esperanto, French, and Magyar, Wikidata authority links, 176 non-English-language news hits per sources template; may benefit from review by subject-matter/language expert. If kept, definitely needs better sources. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of quotable sources around, both in Romanian ([8], [9] [10]) and in Hungarian ([11], [12], [13]). - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We introduced neutral external references. Content already a certified and supported in several places independnte. What should I do for the article will not be nominated for deletion? [14][15] [16][17][18] Böszörményi Zoltán: biography by Banat Library RO Thanks, NyJ (Nyugati Jelen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyJ (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above by Biruitorul (the ones by NyJ are mostly primary). Cavarrone 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Pokémon Journey

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches into Google, Yahoo! and Bing yield nothing substantial, only places to purchase this manga and fan-based/user-generated websites. No mentions of reviews from reliable reporters or awards etc. ~~In, addition, this manga does not have its own page on the Japanese Wikipedia.~~ KirtZJ (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that I found anything substantial to present, but there is a JAWP article ja:ポケットモンスター PiPiPi★アドベンチャー. Though through a quick skim JAWP actually has less content than in ENWP and zero sources. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Looking a bit down the AfD log and seems like nom just forgot to clear that last sentence when copying his similar nom from the similarly desolate Be a Master! Pokemon B & W (AfD), which actually has no JAWP article. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! - I found a ~~mention~~ book review in Manga: The Complete Guide by Jason Thompson. See Google Books PT685. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Corrected my reply as of 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One mention is hardly the significant coverage as stipulated at GNG. Show me how this topic is notable based on how the wikiproject selects articles for creation. The Japanese wiki search was an error on my part, even though that page is still in pretty bad shape. —KirtZ^Message 12:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source does in fact contribute to the notability because it has Wikipedia:Significant coverage: Jason Thompson gives his opinion of the work and explains what he likes about it. The book is a collection of manga reviews and reviews do contribute to the notability of the works they are about. In fact, I shouldn't have called it a "mention"... I should have made clear what it really was (you can look at the source yourself and see what it has).

"Show me how this topic is notable based on how the wikiproject selects articles for creation." - KirtZ, all I need to do is show that this topic meets WP:GNG. The moment it meets GNG, it's notable, and the article is kept.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your arguments over a single source and since I'm pretty sure you'll present the same argument if a single source surfaces for the other page, I'm not even gonna bother debating here. I can already see the "kept based on no consensus" vote showing up. —KirtZ^Message 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be source #2: "Viz Manga/Book News" (Archive). Anime News Network. November 12, 1999. it says that Viz has released a press release but I'm not sure if this is a verbatim press release, or a new article based on it.

It is a good thing when one reliable source is found.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found source #2 "Viz Manga/Book News" (Archive). Anime News Network. November 12, 1999. is not a press release authored by Viz (it is a secondary source based on Viz's press release, rather than being a verbatim press release)

By comparison the Viz press release is here: "Press Releases : November 1999 : Magical Pokémon Journey " (Archive)

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Seems notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a typical notable manga article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except nothing suggests that it is. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Pokémon (manga) - The sources found above include one review and an announcement of the release, im not seeing any in depth coverage here. Normally when I think of notability in fiction I think of at least three or more reviews along with if possible some additional real world information through reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed opinion per below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to the parent article for manga of the franchise As much as Thompson's review can be used for reception, it's not a sign of notability. As the aim of the book is to provide reviews (or at the least, comments) of more or less all manga released in english at the time of publication, it does not differentiate between notability or success. It's not any different from how Anime Encyclopaedia isn't a indication of notability, the scope is different but the basic idea is the same. Additionally. a news item based on a press release is no better than the original press release as notability evidence. Also, the existence of an article at Ja.Wiki is irrelevant as we can't use Wikipedia as a source anyway, therefore it has no bearing on the discussion. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "of more or less all manga released in english at the time of publication, it does not differentiate between notability or success" - One could say the same thing about a book of Roger Ebert's reviews or a book of reviews from any person who reviews feature films. The fact that it's a feature film at all is a "screen" of notability, and likewise with the fact that the manga have been deemed as commercially viable to translate for foreign audiences. The fact that a review published a reliable secondary source exists at all inherently adds notability. It is not analogous to an automated database such as IMDB or the ANN database. It is instead analogous to ANN's published reviews of manga: it makes a statement evaluating the series. Also consider the author of the review, Jason Thompson.
I am actually surprised that the Japanese Wikipedia userbase had not located significant magazines that regularly publish reviews of manga, analogous to American newspapers publishing feature film reviews, or a manga equivalent of Famitsu.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a write longer reply at first, but comparing feature films and manga is rather misguided, theatrical films are not short of professional reviewers, manga and anime are. This is a manga title and therefore should be judged as a manga. Comparisons with Ebert are rather silly, even taking into account Thompson's CV/Resume. The short answer is that a single review in Thompson's book (being the catalog of titles it is) is not enough to show notability. We need something in addition, and that would be the case even if we had a single magazine review.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone knows Japanese you could go to the Ja.Wiki page and use their sources. I don't know Japanese so I'm of no help in this regard. Psychotic Spartan 123 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Sephy. Let me clarify one thing. The Japanese Wikipedia has zero sources. This is a Japanese manga. The reason I mentioned the Japanese Wiki in the first place was that I had hoped if an article existed there, then they might have found some kind of notability to warrant its existence. If you look at the article they created however, clearly they did not. A deletion and merge would be the best bet here. —KirtZ^Message 13:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ja. Wiki is typically useless for helping with English articles. Even if they exist they tend not to have any sources at all and they have next to no process involved so articles tend to be basic (even major franchises can just end up being unverified lists). It should be checked but the assumption should always be that it won't be helpful until proven otherwise. You an certainly use it as a starting place in some cases, but only at the very start of research - it's a lot easier to research when you are checking information already available.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone wants to they can summarize and include the info on Pokémon (manga) which its-self is lacking sources. As I said above I do not think this is notable, not for a stand alone article anyways as of yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humble Bundles

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

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia is not intended to be exhaustive. This list seems to have the goal though. This information is already reasonable covered by the parent article. The parent article may not list what the weekly bundle for Jan 1st, 2014 was, but that doesn't really seem all to important. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:36, 18 March 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 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (But not prejudiced against deletion) At the talk page of the Humble Bundle, we have a slow discussion about the approach for these two pages now given how frequently the bundles are compared to when they first started (when it was only one every few months), and we recognize this is verving on DISCRIMINATE. These aren't as regularly covered in the sources as they used to. But we haven't moved on how to deal with reorganizing yet. I'd prefer to keep this page here for now (at worse, I'd ask for userification) as we figure out how to trim up things to reflect the nature of the Humble Bundle today. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to you userifying this. But as it stands right now this is completely unnecessary. You have 11 of the 12 main bundles, almost every owner named bundle, most of the android bundles, and others. The discussion looks to have ended more than a year ago. Anywho, the information is in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason to userify if deletion is opted is to merge any trailing information into the article or use it to build out categories. If we know what we know now on the HB approach, I'd likely not have created this list. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a template at one point before this, if I recall correctly, that contained all of the bundles. It seems to be gone. The information in the article is mostly if not completely in the article. There's nothing really in the list to justify keeping it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page contains significantly more information than the article, such as the price and how popular each was, and organizes it in a more readable format. I have personally used this page multiple times in the past. It most certainly is not unnecessary or redundant. I see your point that it is a lot of information, perhaps close to the point of too much, but I do not think that it has reached that point yet. If it did I would rather some information be pared down than deleted outright. Mamyles (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but I'm not buying the arguments here. The fact it has "significantly more information than the article" is a bad thing, because there is way too much detail here. The page is enormous, many of the games aren't notable, the article itself is woefully sourced, and WP:NOTDIR/WP:LISTCRUFT seem to come into play. I see no value whatsoever in having a generic list of every Humble Bundle ever. What next? A list of every Steam Sale ever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Masem. While there are some definite problems with the list as-is, I think we need to come to a conclusion on how to incorporate the noteworthy discussion of early humble bundles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lukeno94. Given the frequency of humble bundles, I just don't see this list being maintainable and a lot of these bundles aren't noteworthy. Any bundle that received significant coverage can be be covered in the Humble Bundle article. – The1337gamer (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I recognize the delete !votes and their arguments but I think it would be a shame to full-on delete the article. There may also be a more maintainable version (I'm skeptical) that someone light bulbs on if it is kept. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What good would userfying this do? Also, how would any form of this list be valid? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's some information that should be reflected back into the main article if this is deleted - obviously not the whole list, but, for example, the first 10-some numbered bundles, that were bringing in millions in revenue, could be documented as example of the success. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the pretty easy retort to the first question WP:USERFY (c.f. the last sentence of the first paragraph)? Besides, you wouldn't be able to stop him from asking an admin to userfy it for him should the decision here be to delete the article, anyway. My !vote just skips that (WP:BURO) step.
Maybe Masem finds some way to strip down the list such that it becomes maintainable while also passing WP:NOT, which is the only policy that I can conceive of the article today failing.
An alternative location might be the Draft namespace. --Izno (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does serve a distinct purspose compared to the parent. I agree that the article has way too much information on it, though. It may be sufficient to remove the list of games from each bundle? That should still give a good overview of the salient data points without overloading the reader. Alexbrainbox (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the games (which are all in the article) you are left with numbers(that are in the article). While it serves a distinct purpose, the question is if it actually serves an encyclopedic purpose. It has trivia, trivia that is mostly in the main article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the list of bundles would be due to include at the main article, it's an appropriate stand-alone article. I would say this passage from WP:EMBED applies: Lists of works of individuals or groups, such as bibliographies, discographies, filmographies, album personnel and track listings, as well as timelines or chronologies, are typically presented in simple list format, though it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style.. And I would argue the list is due to include as part of the identity/notability of Humble Bundle in general (each of the lists attracts a decent amount of coverage individually, though certainly not enough to merit stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That entire argument falls apart when you consider that they shouldn't be included in full in the main article, as most of the bundles are entirely non-notable. Routine coverage of a bundle is, well, routine, and doesn't constitute notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That each of them has to be notable is false. This is not a list of examples like a list of hip hop artists or a list of companies based in Oregon but an exhaustible list containing every member of the group. Their individual notability is not relevant here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would we have an exhaustive list of every Steam sale? No, no we wouldn't. This is exactly the same as that would be, just on a bigger scale. The fact that this would be insanely excessive detail in the main article does NOT justify the existence of this list. HBs, for the most part, have been extremely regular for a long time; this list does not serve any real purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not a very good analogy. Steam sales are not the set of events that comprise the entirety of the subject. Steam sales are not the products themselves, these are. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A significant difference here is that, compared to say the lists of hip hop artists, or the like, these sales only happened for a limited time, and thus no longer possible to even buy them. So we should be looking at the long-term effect. And this is where things get tricky. The first several Main bundles (the numbered ones) had high visibility, bringing additional attention to the games included, adding in the strong charity efforts and developers producing DRM-free versions on all three major platforms. Clearly that influence can be documented. But once they began running bundles on a semi-regular schedule, the attention dropped, and while they were still making charity efforts and other factors, the impact on the individual games included no longer because a major factor. As such, the bundles today are basically like a storefront, like steam. But that's why I've argued that to keep is to figure out where to draw the line as to what are bundles that really did have attention, and thus that have become routine. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the earlier bundles have no notability their self and actually paint the (for lack of a better term) entity behind them as notable. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that the individual early bundles had their own notability for a standalone (IIRC, we didn't create this article until #3 was out, but going off memory here). However, the amount of coverage of the early numbered bundles was huge, and the games included received additional attention from it. There were near-daily articles about reaching $x million marks, unlocking of source code, etc. Today, even considering just the main bi-weekly bundle, you might find it mentioned in passing in game deals, or sometimes called out but nowhere close to what the initial bundles got. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note is that when the Humble Bundle started when they weren't regular things, the individual bundles did receive attention, itself changing the model of how HB worked. But that was the case for only the "main" bundles, and most of the rest are truly not notable. Hence I think there's a subset to be kept, but definitely not the whole list. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Humble Bundle is extremely notable, being huge successful as a tool of selling games and raising a lot of money for charity. Therefore it makes sense to keep a list of the game deals for future reference, as it has had such a huge influence on the industry. It is well maintained and comprehensive. Also the WP:NOTEVERYTHING deletion argument is weak as it is in no way indiscriminate. The various bundles are still referenced in forums that I visit, so have long lasting appeal amongst PC gamers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme notability? So I guess the Valve corporation would be Uber mega extremely notable. While the case that the [[Humble Bundle], the "tool", is notable has been made, no one denies this. I'd probably just call it notable and not extremely notable. The list is completely indiscriminate, the very definition of the word. Every humble weekly bundle from the start til the week of December 18, 2014. Every Pop up humble bundle until february of this year. Most Humble Flash bundles til when ever. We are just missing the humble ebook bundles I think. Beyond the fact that this is an indiscriminate list it reproduces information already in the parent article. The list serves no actual purpose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree much more, and I think it's a shame that consensus is clearly going to ignore common sense and the size of the page, and will result in the page being kept. Most Bundles are completely non-notable, with nothing bar routine coverage cropping up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You wrote "The list is completely indiscriminate" well I stopped there, if you can't see how this list is not indiscriminate I give up really. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the list is verving that way, which is why while I'd like it kept, even then it needs a lot of pruning. Because HB is running weekly and biweekly bundles, even though there are charitable efforts on each time, its effectively a catalog, like documenting what was each big-box store was selling in their sunday ads. To that degree, there is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG here, and why either that if this list is kept it needs trimming, or that if it is not kept, it is trimmed to summarize the major, less frequent bundles that made it influential in the past. --MASEM (t)

OK so you're saying the article may need trimming due to technical or other reasons? That I can accept. However, this is an AfD: what is being debated is the existence of the article. So the size is not directly relevant to this discussion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily a size issue, but an issue that the list presently contains both some discriminate information and some indiscriminate information, with the latter starting to outweigh it, and indiscriminate information can lead to size issues. I believe that the list should be kept with trimming of the indiscriminate information to fix it, but I'd also accept deletion w/ userification or merging of the discriminate information into the main Humble Artist (itself needing a rewrite knowing what we know now). So discussion of deletion is completely fair here, and there are definitely valid reasons to delete. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're effectively voting merge? Well I think that's a poor solution given each articles length. If you're voting delete you're saying the whole should be deleted, not that elements should be merged. And I still don't understand how any of it is indiscriminate, it's all highly specific. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep with the understanding massive trimming is needed, but would support a merge to incorporate only the discriminate material. And the reason it is indiscriminate is that, taking any random bundle they offer today (in 2015), it's just a specialized form of sale with a charity aspect. It is nowhere close to the level of community aggressiveness we had when the first 5 or 6 bundles came online. This is just listing out sales, which is a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG making it indiscriminate. A way to measure this indiscriminateness is to look for sourcing for a given single bundle, and you'll find much less about them today than those first offered. If we're the only ones assembling this, that's likely a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look indiscriminate according to Wiktionary "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless." How can a very precise list, carefully and exactly constructed, with no margin for argument, be indiscriminate? I'm convinced you're using the wrong word. Maybe you mean "I find it uninteresting"? In no way is it indiscriminate. However, I feel I might be wasting my time arguing this point any further. But please look at some dictionaries. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not precise, carefully and exactly constructed. It's a messy, exhaustive, incomplete, almost entirely unsourced directory. Many bundles aren't listed and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be). The several IP editors that had the dedication to keep updating it gave up a long time ago. As Humble continues to expand this list becomes less maintainable and less useful. In it's current format this article has no chance to succeed. If it isn't deleted or significantly reworked this time around then it will inevitably be nominated again. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I disagree in almost every way. Overall I'm impressed by it. There is considerable preciseness, verging on the extreme. And it is carefully and exactly constructed, I really don't understand how this could be improved. Maybe it is incomplete, but that is difficult for me to verify: but it is probably the most complete list on the web. As for messy: I consider it extremely well organized. As for the details: I really don't think it would benefit from additional details as you describe, that would detract from readability. It is also not a directory, please look at a dictionary definition to understand this. You don't think it will succeed: well so far most of the !votes have been to keep. It's also an extremely popular page, with 36,770 views in the last 90 days, which should count for at least something. Isn't that succeeding? It is for the benefit of readers after all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Preciseness is a problem. We're here to summarize , not go into excessive detail; that's one way something can be indiscriminate. And while what is indiscriminate is in the eye of the beholder, we have to consider that the average reader is not a video game player, and that the bulk of the information in this table is useless to them. If we limited it to the main numbered bundles - the ones that have raised the most for charity, the data there helps to explain why the HB system was important. But taking any random bundle out recently, not as much. (also be aware that page view counts mean nothing, as outlined at WP:ATA.) --MASEM (t) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK so Masem thinks there is too much detail, and The1337gamer thinks there is too little, I think it's about right. Where is the correct place to discuss this? On the article talk page. Not at AfD really, lets not count chickens until they're hatched. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was too little detail. I said it was both incomplete and exhaustive. Incomplete does not mean it is lacking detail, it's a different problem entirely. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said "...and pricing information is missing for a bunch that are listed (189 N/A where prices and purchases should be)" i.e. it is missing pricing information, which is an additional detail. And incomplete is the opposite of exhaustive. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding me. By exhaustive I mean that this article is trying to cover all Humble Bundles (which it should not be doing). By incomplete I mean that information is missing. Two different problems. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or another way to put it, we go into far too great detail on the bundles themselves, but we're also missing large swathes of bundles to be listed. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I contend that the list is remarkable complete, I cannot see any missing bundles at all. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, it is missing the last few (including the present) main bundles and weekly bundles since the start of 2015. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it misses the current bundle, I'm sure that will be remedied. As for the lesser bundles, these are of less significance. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which pretty much confirms how we are saying this is indiscrimiante if you consider those "lesser" bundles. (which I agree). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrjulesd, No I wouldn't say, "I do not find this interesting." or what ever words that you are trying to put in my mouth. I do actually find it interesting, but I also find it to be indiscriminate and ultimately unencyclopedic. The numbers of those that have viewed this article do not make it any less indiscriminate or any less unencyclopedic. The was no (or little) descrimination used in the creation of this list. The majority of the information is trivial and contained in the parent article. The list is overly excessive. The list also encourages this over excess. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I think I've said the majority of my points. But I will say this much. There seems to be no question over the notability of Humble Bundles. If that is the case, page view statistics become highly relevant. The fact that there has been 36,000 views over the last 90 days suggest their is considerable interest in this list [19]. We should put the readership of Wikipedia in high consideration in debates like these. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Page view statistics matter not one jot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well they ought to be. It's a WP:COMMONSENSE argument. A notable topic, with considerable public interest, ought to be kept. Remember the readers. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense means that we give them proper things to read, not a messy list that manages to be overly detailed and incomplete at the same time. Page views are meaningless; a page on SkyDoesMinecraft would get a huge amount of views, and yet he doesn't meet notability guidelines/doesn't have an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page views on their own are meaningless, but with notability they become significant. I contend it is of high quality: but if you think it can be improved, why not improve it? --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Page views are meaningless full stop. Why should I waste time improving something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is a grossly oversized and overly detailed list full of non-notable things? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But Cut out Publisher, Publishing date and Description Derry Adama (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Humble bundle, There is good reason to call for a size split. The section Humble_Bundle#Main_bundles down to before the analysis section could be split off and paired with some of this list.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:09, 9 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 Andover, Massachusetts. Nakon 03:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pike School

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

Not a high school, so it has no presumption of notability. Fails WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard for a private school. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is correct that this prep school goes only to grade 9 and thuse doesn't qualify for our usual presumption of high school notability. HighBeam turns up quite a few sources about the school [20], including some that might be taken as evidence that it's an elite, notable school, such as [21][22][23][24]. And here's a news article that explicitly refers to it as "prestigious" and "elite", although it does so in the context of reporting an accusation of sexual abuse by a teacher. [25] I'm on the fence about whether this is quite enough; it wouldn't take too much more, though. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding those, but I disagree on their utility as notability sources. Two of the five were not directly about the school but more about prep schools in general. The two sex abuse stories may go a bit further, but until the situation resolves, we cannot use them due to blp concerns and NOTNEWS. The story on oratory is great and should be added to the article. The biggest problem is they are all out if Boston, which is essentially local. They do nothing toward satisfying ORG. John from Idegon (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have this page on my watchlist. I think you're right that this page on that basis is not notable, even with the news story and the information that's about it. Even looking at it, there's not much to be put on Wikipedia about it besides the speech team, so I would say this doesn't warrant a page at all. It's already on stub and low class in two or three WikiProjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanic1c (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its locality per long-standing precedent as documented at OUTCOMES.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my mind. I think you're right on that idea Mechanic1c (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD regarding the treatment of ordinary primary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pemiscot County Does

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

Day three, and the third nomination from @Gourami Watcher:'s personal InformativeMurderPornPedia project. This was previously AFD'ed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississippi County Does where it was kept due to lack of activity, don't make the same mistake twice. Like Tempe Girl, this article also hosts amateur self-illustrated portraits - File:Pemiscot County Unidentified Male Recon 001a.jpg & File:Namus 5158 Reconstruction 009a.jpg.

The murders are not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does not cover every murder, even if every murder is covered by a reliable source somewhere. There are no reliable sources other than local news and crime databases. No significant independent coverage of the case. - hahnch e n 17:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've said before, the page meets criteria for WP:VICTIM/ONEEVENT, as the crime was unusual, since both victims have remained unidentified for nearly four decades. The crime has been covered by national resources such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the government-run National Missing and Unidentified Persons System which are both credible and have national importance. The fact that this article contains "amateur self-illustrated portraits" has absolutely no relevance to indicate if the cases are notable but simply reduces the amount of non-free images to be uploaded. On another note, I'd appreciate the absence of offensive and unnecessary phrases such as " Gourami Watcher's InformativeMurderPornPedia project." You have the right to your own opinion, just don't be a jerk--GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a database does not mean a crime/person is notable. I really don't want to see your United States National Sex Offenders Public Registry series of biographies on Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 02:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the criterias at WP:VICTIM and ONEEVENT. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG - Notability is there so seeing no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Figueras

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. TOOSOON ubiquity (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look to have actually done anything, fails WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baghal Rajput

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is a state of this name, and at least one raja of the Puar or Panwar who was called Baghal, but otherwise there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss this alleged clan. I suspect it is just another Indian surname.

The article was PRODed but that appears to have been contested. Sitush (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very difficult to make anything of this. I suspect there are some language issues here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the AFD so I apologize if I've messed anything up or missed something out. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The Puar or Panwar or Parmara or alike are already listed on wikipedia among Rajputs. Observation by Sitush finds its correct place on the article Parmara. A separate article for Baghal seems to have no scope at all.Sitush is right, the surname is in use in India by a non-Rajput community. -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some sourcing can be provided to verify the notability of this topic or extend its content beyond eight words, this is as clear-cut a case as one ever gets on AfD. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I may be wrong, but I thing it's a duplicate of Baghela (also unreferenced) using a different transliteration. That makes this a CSD A10 candidate, with an AfD to follow for Baghela. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to be sure, given the lack of info/sourcing in both articles. There are many similar-but-arguably-different groups, eg: Bhutta and Bhutto, Soomro and Soomra. Baghela does at least appear to exist, although whether it passes GNG might still be moot. - Sitush (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. However, there was one princely state of Baghal - as already said by nominator. Jethwarp (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah_Im_Derech_Eretz. merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School

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

No notability - in fact, apparently nonexistent Ravpapa (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written by User:Rabroy in 2011, a user with a clear conflict of interest. At the time, I questioned whether this institution really existed - it had no students and offered no classes, had no accreditation, and was not affiliated with any other Jewish institution. However, Rabroy convinced us (myself and the few other editors involved) that there was enough documentation to justify an article. However, the Wikipedia article was just about the last reference to this Yeshiva. It still has no students and offers no courses (as far as I can determine - perhaps someone will correct me), and has not been mentioned in the press, Jewish or other, since.

So it seems an open and shut case to me. Anyone think differently? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia WP:Notability guidelines. Suttungr (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I want to make clear that I had never heard of this seminary until about 20 minutes ago. However, notability is not temporary, Wikipedia is appropriately filled with pages on seminaries and schools of all types that existed only briefly. I see no evidence that this one has ceased to exist. But it certainly caused a stir of coverage when founded, and at least thru 2013. Another fact is that much of the coverage (in blogs, opinion columns, news articles, also visible and in edit record of page) was due to controversies within the Jewish world over the definitions of "orthodoxy" Not unusual. You can find similar in Christianity , Islam and Buddhism. Ignoring the strum und drang, sources suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the feeling here is that the article should be kept, it should certainly mention the fact that the Yeshiva has never offered any courses, has never had students, is unaffiliated with any institution (Jewish or otherwise), and offers no form of certification. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Modern Orthodox Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah Im Derech Eretz per Ravpapa & E.M.Gregory below. Ravpapa seems to have a valid case. Check out the "external links" on the article's page: (1) This institution's website "www.cdnyeshiva.org" is now non-existent i.e "server not found" and (2) for over three years its official blog "canadianyeshiva.wordpress.com" has not had a post since January 23, 2012. Something is very wrong here! An idea that came and went maybe, a defunct institution, a fictitious "yeshiva" that is nothing of the sort. Suggest (and this is being very kind) that since this so-called "yeshiva" is, or was, on the University of Toronto's campus and offers courses in conjunction with it, ~~that this article about an evidently defunct program be Merged and Redirected to University of Toronto#Governance and colleges where~~ it can still "hang on to life" but as it stands now is dead in the water or just a dead letter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
?So, it's an institution that was founded, attracted a bit of attention, perhaps enough to qualify as an article, then folded? There are others. This museum idea officially folded The Boston Museum. Others, [[26]] seem to fade away. Certainly we can edit this seminary article to show that it no longer exists, but do we have a reliable source? How do we handle cases where the fate of the project is not clear? Where there is not confirmation that a plan or briefly extant institution has been abandoned? This may be an example Armenian Genocide Museum of America, and that Museum of Motherhood is probably abandoned too. There are others Category:Proposed museums, and undoubtedly in other categories, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our point, EM, is not that this is an institution that existed and has become defunct. It is an institution that never existed. It never had any students, it never offered any courses, and it never had any accreditation. It was only hype, and it is hype that has ceased to be.

I just wanted to make that point clear. I have no objection to not deleting it, if there is consensus for that. But we shouldn't keep it in the belief that it was once a seminary, because it never was. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And mine was that it is in a category of WP pages about plans that got enough attention to pass WP:GNG, such as The Boston Museum, although they never existed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking how we source this? Can we find a RS to establish the extent to which it did exist (as a plan, a funding campaign, or whatever?) And a source saying that the plan to create it was abandoned? Or do we need a tag for planned institutions that appear to no longer have backers intending to open them?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept your point about plans that got enough attention. And I also understand your question about sourcing - a knotty problem, indeed. If there were students and a program, it would be pretty easy to find a source. But find a source that says there were none? I am, essentially, surmising that there are no students, based on the fact that there were none in 2012 (documented in the article), and the whole project seems to have been abandoned since then. But I certainly don't know that for a fact, and have no idea how we would go about finding a source for this (of course, we could write a letter to founder Roy Tanenbaum, but that is against the rules). Dilemma. Maybe the best thing to do is just leave it alone. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravpapa: You were right first time around, this article is evidently just "junk information" at this point. But it did get some press over three years ago, that in turn got it onto Wikipedia, where it now hangs by a bare thread. ~~Please consider my suggestion that it be "downgraded" by means of a Merge and Redirect to University of Toronto#Governance and colleges~~ Merge and Redirect to Modern Orthodox Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah Im Derech Eretz per Ravpapa & E.M.Gregory below, with a few sentences describing what it is/was supposed to be about. That way it is still noted but not notable enough for its own article, unless someone can show why it deserves it's independent space on Wikipedia. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

Not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all. EM, what say you? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm good with that merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep and update if there are sources to update with; otherwise merge a proposed institution that never was actually implemented can be notable if there was sufficient discussion. This is true of any topic, but only if there are sufficient reliable references to show side discussion. The article asserts that the institution gave classes, but does not asset that it actually accepted students into a rabbinical program--that would not qualify as a degree-granting institution for presumptive notability, but the question here is GNG.) The current article is not acceptable if if not do what it promised, because it is misleading, but that is a question of updating. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 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, Nakon 03:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah_Im_Derech_Eretz. Merging with the University of Toronto seems pretty far-fetched, since, aside from a one-sentence statement of intention, the (non)school never had anything to do with the university. On the other hand, it was a serious attempt to develop a new form of orthodoxy, so that is probably where the reference best belongs. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge endorsing User:Ravpapa]'s suggestion to merge into Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Neo-Orthodoxy#Torah_Im_Derech_Eretz E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article currently does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Initiative

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

Non-notable organisation. A simple search shows only 84 hits, mostly trivial. And it's not as if it's gained any traction in its chosen market - it's supposed to be a global fundraising organisation but after 3 years of operation its "prize fund" peaked at $5,000 ~~and it looks like someone just spent that - there's currently only $42.89 in the bank~~. I'm not saying it's a scam but it certainly fails WP:GNG, which is more than enough. Probably WP:ARTSPAM too. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are many organizations called "Mars Initiative" which makes proper searching a bit difficult. Of the sources in the article, only the Digital Journal one works toward notability. I dio find one other good source - a Crowd Fund Insider article. Is that enough for notability? Not sure - I am on the fence. Pinging @Andrewman327: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Across all social media (Google+, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, & YouTube), Mars Initiative has 172,486 followers. Here is their Facebook page. Isn't that enough for notability? Oh, and there must have been a mistake on the URL above because it looks like the Mars Prize Fund still has over $5,000. Pinging @Andrewman327: so he can accept this AfC for input.

Sorry, but that's not strictly correct. The twitter account, for example, has only 560 followers; Facebook has 1,789 likes, a few for each post; LinkedIn has only 62 followers. The exception is Google+ with a crazy number, but that's the "circle", not dedicated followers - circles are notoriously easy to grow and virtually meaningless as an index of notability. Moreover this social media activity seems to be centred around retweets and posts about sexy Martian goings-on - pictures, videos, announcements and the like - rather than arising directly from any activity by the organisation. Donations are virtually zero ($5,000 in 3 years).

I note that the prize fund has been restored to its former sad balance of $5,000 or so and I've struck out my earlier comment. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget the social media counts. Forget the bank balance. The guideline here is WP:ORG, and this organization fails it. I could find no independent sourcing at all, except for the Digital Journal interview at the article and the Crowd Fund Insider interview mentioned by Thaddeus. It turns out that there are five nonprofit organizations[27] all trying to do the same thing - send somebody to Mars. It appears that this group is neither unique nor particularly impactful. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This Wikipedia page should not be deleted because Mars Initiative is a valuable U.S. non-profit organization in online STEM education, promoting science literacy and public interest in Mars exploration internationally. My NGO has worked in cooperation with Mars Initiative since its inception in 2011. For example, Mars Initiative has generated over 6 million views of their STEM content to date via their Google+ page and over 169,000 followers! On Facebook, they have 1790 likes, 560 followers on Twitter and over 400 members in their LinkedIn Group. These are impressive social media outreach statistics in comparison with many non-profits in the space education and advocacy sector run by all-volunteers. From a grassroots global audience perspective, Mars Initiative is a unique and highly notable organization that is well appreciated by the people it serves in real numbers, punching well above its weight despite limited financial resources. Human Mars missions may be a decade or two away, but thanks to these dedicated and visionary volunteers, the long-term dream is kept alive for future generations. "This is a real organization with real objectives." Please take this into serious consideration now and in the future. Thank You -Dwayne Lawrence (a Mars Initiative volunteer), Founder & Executive Director - Friends of NASA, Montreal, Canada www.FriendsofNASA.org

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

560 Twitter followers is not "impressive social media outreach". The Google+ figure sounds impressive until you realise that they are simply reposting lots of interesting Mars stuff and that's bound to get lots of likes. But thay not have been unable to convert this into fund-raising, which shows that people are just clicking "follow" and then going away. Nobody is talking about them on the web. As MelanieN points out above, they unquestionably fail WP:ORG. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really do not know why this is even an issue as the work of this organization and what it stands for is very important for space travel. It seems as though Andyjsmith might have something against the organization for him to be so against it. I ask why? Here are a few links: SpaceVidCast, FernandoRosales, MarsTravel.org, UrgencyNetwork. It is clear that this organization is real. It is clear that this organization is unique. So what if they are slow to grow their dontions. The fact that they are an official nonprofit organization with all current filings and they are trying to succeed should be worthy enough to keep a tiny Wiki page about them... Again, what does Andy have against the organization? Here are come more official links:

Mars Prize Fund, Texas Comptroller's Office, IRS Website.

I don't know what that list of links is supposed to prove, but FWIW here's a breakdown:

SpaceVidCast - self published, irrelevant under WP:RS

FernandoRosales - a graphic designer, so what?

MarsTravel.org - self published, irrelevant under WP:RS

UrgencyNetwork - fund raising site, proves nothing

Texas Comptroller's Office - proves they exist

IRS Website - ditto

Nobody has said they don't exist, simply that they are not notable. WP's minimum criterion for notability is WP:GNG, which they obviously and totally fail. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Mars Initiative is to create grassroots support for a manned mission to Mars. That support will eventually result in more donations toward a prize fund for the first entity that lands humans on Mars. Unfortunately most causes are not going to be financially supported by the public over night, which is why we attempt to build a groundswell of social media followers. We do so by posting interesting articles or photos of Mars so that those interested in Mars will gravitate toward our pages and share the articles with others. Overtime as our follower base increases we will begin to pitch different ideas more and more, including that of donating to the Mars Prize Fund. Andy states "The Google+ figure sounds impressive until you realise that they are simply reposting lots of interesting Mars stuff and that's bound to get lots of likes," but the marketing strategy makes practical sense because with literally zero funds it is impossible to establish a following unless you start to provide something people want. We do that by being a central source that people can check for the latest photos and articles about Mars from around the web. So is our entire 'circle' going to contribute to the Mars Prize Fund? Absolutely not, but as it expands so to will our reach and our ability to reach out and inspire others to contribute their time or resources toward such a cause. If you don't think the marketing strategy is sound then I encourage you to explain to me a better way to establish a following with zero funds and volunteers (which is what we all are). What makes Mars Initiative "unique" is that it is the only organization that is developing a "Google Lunar X Prize" type fund for the first humans that land on Mars. Further, it is attempting to crowdfund said prize. As I have stated above, most grassroots campaigns require gaining rapport and a following from your target audience before you can fully mobilize with your call to action. Could Mars Initiative be doing a better job at getting the word out there? As the Media Relations/Marketing Director, yes, we absolutely could, but what you have to remember is that we are volunteering for this organization and all of us have jobs and families that limit our ability to enhance the organization. Is Mars Initiative a legitimate Non-Profit, yes. Has it gained a substantial following on social media, yes, with particular emphasis on Google+ because a large amount of our audience favors that social media platform. Please consider the above when making the decision to delete Mars Initiative's Wikipedia page. Thank you. --David J Geaney, Media Relations/Marketing Director, Mars Initiative

I'm afraid you answered your own question: "Could Mars Initiative be doing a better job at getting the word out there?... yes". Until you have got the message out there you're unlikely to pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The guideline also states that "No matter how 'important' editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it". Sorry, but thems the rules. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to get past WP:ORG PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:NOQUORUM, this is a soft delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra N.

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

There simply isn't anything to indicate this individual might pass WP:MUSICBIO, as a look at the sources will reveal:

"Daughter of the Mayor of Albeştii de Muscel, New Conquest of Cristian Boureanu" - er, ok....
A puff piece in a local paper informing us that the subject "wants to reach Eurovision". I'm sure many people want that; not all of them are notable.
Blog post; in any event, I think we can safely discount a site the name of which is "the nigger".
Interview for some student platform. Even if this were a reliable source, which it isn't, the introduction gives the game away: "Alexandra wants to have a career as a professional musician".
"Daughter of Mayor Năftănăilă Changes Her Name" - ok, good for her.
Tabloid trash from Libertatea
Autobiography on a music company website
Nominations list for an award - from the very people who hand out that award.

I think the level of coverage speaks for itself here, and we can safely delete until some more credible outlet picks up on this individual. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:16, 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, Nakon 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andra (singer)

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

In gauging notability, I think we can safely discount the tabloid interviews, the PR bio from the subject's employer, and this bit of puffery, which leaves us with this - a short announcement that the subject won the MTV Europe Music Award for Best Romanian Act at the 2014 MTV Europe Music Awards. That may or may not qualify her under WP:MUSICBIO point 8 - "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award" - but I think, given the examples listed, this does not qualify as a "major music award". Within the context of the MTV Europe Music Awards, I would imagine that the international awards (Song, Video, Female, Male, etc.) do count, but the case for regional awards like this one seems weaker. Coupled with the fact that this is essentially the only thing drawn from a reliable source that one can say about the subject, I would say she may be notable in the future, but not yet. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Sourcing seems sufficient to pass WP:GNG (albeit not by a terribly robust margin) which makes any particular facets of consistency with WP:MUSICBIO moot; notability on the basis of awards need not be established in that she is discussed (at a mininmally acceptable length) in reliable sources. I understand Biruitorul's concerns, but going by the letter of policy, she is notable, even if not an entertainer of earth-shattering reputation. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" - plural. One of the article sources is the website of her employer, and can safely be disregarded as a conflict of interest. This one is quite simply so biased as to be unquotable - every single paragraph drips with adulation. The final source tells us nothing about the subject other than her having won the award. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MTV Europe Music Award for Best Romanian Act sounds like a valuable accomplishment, important enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ANYBIO IMO. An album receiving platinium certification is another important claim of notability per WP:MUSICBIO (and goes back in 2007!). Sourcing looks decent too. She also hosted some TV-shows in major private channels and was a judge in Românii au talent, so aside her musical career she could also be eligible under WP:ENT as well. Cavarrone 07:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEXX

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

Let's start by analyzing the sources:

Cruft, cruft, cruft,
Blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post
Tabloid trash and again (Libertatea is a tabloid, while ele.ro is a women's gossip rag)
Local paper announcing a concert

Well, we don't even have to dig further into the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, because the article plainly lacks credible sources that would attest claims of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: A notable band with charting record that reached the top 3 of the Romanian chart. Article duly sourced by multiple publications despite the objections of proposing colleague for deletion of article. NEXX hit "Synchronized Lips" reached number 2 in Romanian Singles Chart staying in the chart for 10 weeks. See: March 8, 2009 entry at List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2009. Multiple hits. Winner of Eska Award and Romanian Music Awards. werldwayd (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive claims, to be sure. Present reliable sources, and they'll gain credibility. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much of the sourcing is quasi-primary and some of the secondary sourcing is bloggish in nature, but at least a couple of the sources are from acceptable secondary publications that represent reliable sources and it seems likely more could be found to further support notability. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to elaborate on which sources strike you as reliable? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some sources are from reliable and acceptable grounds.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Never heard of them till well now, but upon reading that they have had success, seems to be a keep! Wgolf (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above votes are basically instances of WP:ILIKEIT. Just which sources attest the band's notability - the cruft, the blogs or the tabloid gossip? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hartney

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

This seems borderline, but I don't think he quite meets WP:Notability (sports) or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability for 7 years, hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable athlete. Has competed in some events but has not medalled. Doesn't meet WP:Notability requirements. Suttungr (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. Never appears to have competed at the highest level and winning a national age group title is not enough to show notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no sport specific guideline for swimming, but he has competed in the 2009 World Championships (see [28]) and competed (making the 'B' final) at the 2006 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships and 2010 Pan Pacific Swimming Championships (see [29] and [30]) that are equivalent to the European Championships. In addition, with little searching I was able to come across these [31], [32], [33], [34], and [35]. I think this shows GNG is met. Also, and this is just my opinion, when a sport does not have sport specific guidelines I try to look at a similarly situated sport. Track and Field can be considered similar in that it has meets, its major event is the Olympics, is timed race that are mostly individual and some relays, and receive a solid amount of sports coverage. Competing in worlds or a Continental-level meet is enough to presume GNG is met. With what I found with little effort and in view of the high level of competition, I say keep.RonSigPi (talk) 18:43, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just over the border of borderline. Meets GNG, as ronsigpi points out. Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The OTRS ticket does not include any substantial information that would warrant keeping this article. Nakon 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Greanias

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and neither has anyone else in the 7 years that this has been tagged for notability. Pinging those who have looked at its notability: TonyTheTiger, Sting au. Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tough one, because the article claims that all three of his "Atlantis" novels were New York Times bestsellers. The same claim is made all over the internet, but I could not find any independent or reliable sources saying so. The books were published by a legitimate publisher - the paperback division of Simon and Schuster - as well as Kindle editions. All three books have articles here (two of them completely unsourced). But I could not find a single mainstream review of any of the three books (setting aside the usual things like Goodreads and Amazon, which add nothing to notability). Unless someone with better searching skills can find the necessary independent reliable sources, I think this article and all three articles about his books should be deleted as failing WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been a long time since I've seen a real live Unsourced BLP, as this one is. The Google footprint appears to be big enough to indicate that sourcing is out there. Unfortunately, there are waves and waves and waves of promotional pages related to individual books. A terrible article, but the official photo has an OTRS tag attached, so we can probably presume the information here is accurate, albeit unsourced. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 11 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 Paw (band)#History. Nakon 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Without Horses

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

Obscure album with no references that was a obscure band's only release. Wgolf (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find coverage for this album (let alone the band) in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 14:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paw (band)#History (with the history preserved under the redirect) as was done here with Palomar (alternative rock band) by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) at 08:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC). The history should be preserved in case editors in the future find sources about the subject that establish notability.[reply]
I searched for reliable sources and did not find any or if any editors want to merge any information over to Paw (band)#History. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:49, 10 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. (WP:NPASR). Of note regarding the delete or redirect !vote following the nomination, the notion that "nothing notable has been done to its article" is not a valid argument for deletion. As per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chokher Bali (TV series)

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

Contested prod-unnotable show that just started airing. Now maybe someday this will deserve a article. Wgolf (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Zee Bangla. Firstly, the prod removal wasn't given a reason in the edit summary, as the template suggests. Secondly, while this show is relatively new, nothing notable has been done to its article. Finally, while I would like to improve it, I am not familiar with the series enough to save my suggestions given here. If anyone familiar feels strongly about it, they are welcome to improve it; if not... — Wylie pedia 04:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrueShip

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

Can't find any non-press release sources about this company. Sam Walton (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search results are the same as nominator's. I found lots of press releases and nothing else. Fails WP:CORP for lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 10 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, leaning keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Yee

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

seems to be known for only one thing, therefore BLP1E and fails to reach required level of notability _nonsense ferret 14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename Originally the article was named Arrest of Amos Yee. It could be renamed to that with almost no other changes then would not be subject to rules about biographies and obviously pass WP:GNG. That aside, this person has been covered in media over time for multiple reasons. Most of their coverage is about their 2015 arrest, but in 2012 the person also went in the news for making a controversial video, and there is other coverage about this person's acting in a mainstream movie. It might be meaningful to rename this content and frame the coverage around the international news coverage of the arrest and its response if WP:BLP1E is a concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out that changing the name of an article does not stop it being subject to the rules about biographies, indeed the first line of BLP states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". --_nonsense ferret 01:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This non historical people should't be in wikipedia, and where this person also critical founding father of independent Singapore Late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Shujuan5210 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious comment Notability is the issue here, not "historical" qualities, and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT SageGreenRider (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename as per User:Bluerasberry's reasons. DORC (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant international news coverage, plus doesn't look like it will die down anytime soon (though thats mainly due to the delay between the arrest and the sentencing). Thats the wiki-me speaking. (Though personally, I would have voted delete as it feeds his ego.) Zhanzhao (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. While notability is an issue, I feel there are very good non-policy reasons as to why this article needs to be deleted: there is speculation that the subject of this article has narcissistic personality disorder; having seen the video clip of him walking out of the judicial courts after being charged, it strongly appears that he doesn't care about getting negative attention, he just craves it. Having a Wikipedia article on him will surely feed his cravings for attention more, and I believe this web site has a social responsibility not to let him indulge in his narcissistic fantasies. P.s. I was already planning to log into my long-disused Wikipedia account solely to just nominate this article for deletion, on the basis of notability and my stated reasons as well. --A.K.R. (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gathered, you believe this article should be deleted because you disagree with this person? Wikipedia should not be censored because you disagree with the subject matter.

Also, as others have pointed out, Amos Yee has reliable sources that talk about him. Therefore, giving him notability. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Amos is obviously not notable enough. There are many people who has either made seditious remarks or slander against the government, charged and jailed but do not have a wikipedia page. Most notably, Joe Gordan, jailed 2.5 years for insulting the Thai Monarch (http://asiancorrespondent.com/71546/american-jailed-for-2-5-years-for-insulting-thai-monarchy/). Why should a nobody like Amos Yee have a wikipedia page. Having international media reporting on him for a day to cover the lack of interesting news doesn't equate to notability. --muckysock94 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Other stuff exists" (or in this case doesn't exist) isn't a strong argument either way. See WP:OSE. Just because no-one has gotten around to writing about Joe Gordon yet isn't relevant. What you are suggesting would lead to an impasse. "We can't write about Notable Topic Ranked 5,000,001 yet because Notable Topic Ranked 5,000,000 doesn't have an article yet." SageGreenRider (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a tough one. WP:BLP1E challenges the notability of the bio version of the article (it looks like most of the information about his other work are sourced to articles from the last couple days) while WP:EVENT and WP:GNG require coverage that persists over time. We might consider WP:WEBCRIT for an article about the video, but that too assumes coverage over time. It does look like coverage will continue, which inclines me to !vote weak keep since it seems like there's a notable topic in here, even if it requires renaming/refocusing. The problem is that it's conceivable, albeit far from likely, that the arc of the story dies off over the next day or two (for example, if all charges are dropped and no new videos come out). If that happens, it would wind up failing GNG/EVENT. That such a situation is possible makes me hesitant to say keep on a strict policy level (personal predictions of future coverage are not supposed to factor in). I will say, however, that the delete !votes above are particularly poor. @A.K.R.: non-policy reasons are typically discounted by whoever closes this discussion. The idea that we should only cover a person accused of a crime if that person doesn't want us to cover him/her is seriously problematic per WP:NPOV (and WP:BLP). @Muckysock94: what he did to become notable isn't really important and nobody has argued that "'he slandered...' thus he's notable", so you're burning a straw man. All that matters is whether there has been significant coverage in reliable sources -- coverage which persists over time. You should also be aware that arguing for deletion on the basis of no demonstrated coverage over time just means it'll be deleted for the time being -- it doesn't prevent it from being recreated as soon as that "over time" is satisfied. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some unnecessary confusion here. Is the article unquestionably a BLP? yes. Does it therefore fall withing BLP1E? Yes, in this case it does. Will there be future coverage of this person? It is clearly inappropriate to base an argument for keeping an article based on what we think might happen in the future, it is clear that WP:TOOSOON applies in such a case. --_nonsense ferret 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep ignoring the cites from 2012 which are about the prior video, his acting prize, and his appearance in a notable film? Just curious... SageGreenRider (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the cites are from 2012 about the earlier video, so the coverage and notability (or infamy) is sustained. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that I've had the chance to look, yes, there are sufficient sources from before the last few days to satisfy one or more of the notability criteria. Beyond those in the article also see: Popspoken, SINdie, Alvinology, and, the best of these, Yahoo News. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This argument fails to address the fact that this is a BLP we are dealing with, not just any old notability guideline. The precedent is quite clear - if you are known for only one thing, you don't have an article about you no matter how many milion news articles there might be. --_nonsense ferret 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonsenseferret: sure it does. If you are known for only one thing... The entire point of my comment was that there's sufficient coverage from outside the event of the last few days to satisfy concerns of BLP1E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\

Strong Keep With nearly twenty citations from clearly reliable sources, notability is clearly not an issue. WP:BLP1E is not relevant in that only one of the three required criteria for invoking that principle is met (Yee's role was both central to the issue at hand and well-documented, and it seems likely coverage of these events will persist, with a correspondingly raised profile for the subject). The few other objections raised above have no policy basis, with the singular exception of Rhododendrite's observation that persistent coverage may not be established. However, as SageGreenRider's notes immediately above, some sources have spoken to the topics notability extending back to 2012 and, far more compelling, the context that this is a censorship issue attached to Lee Kuan Yew's name means that the resulting legal battle will almost certainly be subject of ongoing coverage. I fully appreciate that there is an element of WP:CRYSTALBALL in any such assessment, but I feel fairly comfortable that this topic can be (even at present) said to be one of non-transient coverage. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This analysis of BLP1E seems to me completely at odds with well established precedent such as Ian Huntley and Ian Brady, both of whom have thousands more articles in the press about them but do not qualify - it really looks like different standards are being applied to the current article for some reason. --_nonsense ferret 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because information about Huntley and Brady are already present in large volume in another article. The same cannot be said for this article. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that argument doesn't work at all - those articles were deleted not because there was other articles, but because they did not qualify. --_nonsense ferret 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, note that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and not relevant to determining whether this article is consistent with policy. I can't speak as to how those discussions progressed (though I can't imagine the fact that the content in question was already found in other articles didn't have an impact as many users will glad !vote for a "delete and merge" option in cases where they would not support removing a notable topic from the project outright), but in any event, as regards this article, the reading of BLP1E is pretty explicit that all three criteria must be met and in this case they are not. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't gloss over those precedents without looking at what it means for the present case - why should we create an exception here when so many more difficult cases in the past with hundreds of times the amount of coverage that the present case has were not exceptions to the rule --_nonsense ferret 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seems like nonsenseferret is either disingenuous or clueless.~~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Huntley never existed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Brady was merged to Moors murders with the nom rationale that "the recent development of that article there's no longer any need for this one". Furthermore, nonsenseferret seems to be ignoring the entire 2011-2015 section, which indicates notability beyond the 2015 arrest. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"disingenuous or clueless" looks awfully like a personal attack - I think you should withdraw that, you should know better. The precedent here is that despite enormous amounts of news coverage over a sustained period of time about both Brady and Huntley, they do not qualify for an article in their own name. That is well established here and you could name a large number of similar cases that have been dealt with in the same way. If Amos Yee is only famous for making some public statements which then get him into trouble, that is no different to Ian Brady carrying out a number of murders.--_nonsense ferret 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the conversation here from all angles. There are several perspectives here and it is best that everyone be WP:NICE. nonsenseferret, I think you are sincere and thoughtful. Starship.paint, I appreciate your comments, and hope that you can see how people of different cultures can have perspectives that go beyond what seems best in the context of another culture. The reasons why someone supports a proposal can be the same cause for someone to oppose it, and we should all support each other here for having an engaging conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's multiple things I feel that nonsenseferret has misrepresented or ignored. I don't know if such mistakes are intentional or not, but I hope they're unintentional. Framing the two Ians as being deleted (just because their articles didn't exist) was a mistake, because one was a merge and the other had no AfD. Applying the precedents, this article would be merged (or renamed) in this case to Arrest of Amos Yee. Not answering arguments that Yee had further notability from 2011-2015 before the 2015 video is another mistake. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 22:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mistake - the precedent is clear - there should not be a biographical article about this person. You seem not to appreciate that the calls for rename are an acceptance of the arguments I've been putting forward. The possible existence of a separate article which is not a biography of this person is of little interest to me. Continuing to accuse me of misrepresentation does not represent much of a recognition of not making personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. --_nonsense ferret 22:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on your comment "The possible existence of a separate article which is not a biography of this person is of little interest to me."? Does it mean you are in favor of a rename, rather than your original proposal to delete it? Also, my interpretation of the "Keep or rename" opinions is that the person's first choice is "keep" but failing that to rename and not delete. I don't interpret such opinions as being an acceptance of your opinion (as I think I understand it) that the the article be deleted completely. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my latest comments. A rename is the middle ground - then BLP1E is entirely rebuffed. I'm interested in compromise, how about you? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument has been consistently throughout that there is clear precedent to show that there should not be a biography of this person on wikipedia. The inclusion of some of the content about his arrest in a separate article is not of any interest to me at all. Of course someone else may well wish to argue that NOTNEWS would apply to such an article, but that won't be me. My only interest was while I was answering queries in #wikipedia-en-help a helpee asked why we should have an article about this teenager, and looking into it, it did seem to me that BL1E would apply taking into account the many other examples of its application. I totally get why people want to champion the cause of freedom of speech but the decision to move content into an article focused on a biography of Amos Yee was not the correct decision. I assume the bit you wish to stand by was the personal attack of my deliberately misrepresenting arguments. --_nonsense ferret 23:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonsenseferret: - you have misunderstood what you believe to be a personal attack. Feel free to read my previous statement again. I don't wish to repeat myself. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonsenseferret: - The issue here is not whether freedom of speech is good or bad nor what system of government is good or bad. It's simply one of "should there be an encyclopedia article about this person?" Again I ask you: Are you in favor of a rename, rather than your original proposal to delete it? And again I ask you "What is your opinion of the 2012 cites?" SageGreenRider (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to understand nonsenseferret's position. Personally, I think it's a clear keep. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment editor of this articles, i sure you want it to keep :) Shujuan5210 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Shujuan5210, but maybe you are confusing cause and effect? I believe the article should be kept, so I contributed. It is not the case that I contributed, therefore I believe it should be kept. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename - per Bluerasberry. If the BLP violates BLP1E, move it (back) to Arrest of Amos Yee, because the number of international reliable sources coverage means that this is simply not going away. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough here to justify notability for an article. It is now obvious that there is genuine notability here, made possible by the reaction of the Singapore authorities – for arresting a kid who is not even 17 for not only not eulogising LKY but also conveniently arresting and charging him for making a vid that insulted him and Jesus. Not only does the whole world now know about Yee's video, it also knows that LKY is not universally revered, and that Singapore has draconian laws as to what can and cannot be said. It has also spawned a host of reactions, including video riposts from other vloggers.
The real question is whether the arrest and the circumstances surrounding it ("the Arrest") ought to be the subject of an article, or whether Yee passes WP:ONEEVENT and therefore justifies having an article. I believe that his winning a prize for Best Actor at the age of 13, added to this spectacular arrest, is sufficient to make Amos Yee the better (and more complete) subject of a WP article as compared with The Arrest. Typically in situations like this, editors are left to contemplate whether there is sufficient material for more than one article. Before any article on the matter was created, I contemplated making Lee Kuan Yew Is Finally Dead! the focus. However, in the best case assuming we had enough material, we could even have a family of articles namely: Amos Yee, the arrest of Amos Yee, and Lee Kuan Yew Is Finally Dead!. Right now, I judge that one article is sufficient, and that it should reside in the 'Amos Yee' namespace. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is an issue, the subject has much more negative impact in different sources and I'm fully agreed with A.K.R. (talk). --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the 2012 cites? Also WP:NOTCENSORED SageGreenRider (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This case (and I think this person) is just getting started. He is currently under arrest and the story is getting more attention. Plus I dont think we've heard the last of this case nor of Amos Yee. More and more people are looking for the wiki entry for him to get more info on his situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribleidea (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! The subject is clearly notable; editors have done a good job of showing this is for more than one reason. The video is a rare honest voice adding a discordant note against that vast crowd of sycophants who sing the praises of creating a "wealthy" society via massive income inequality and hard labor for all but those at the top. I want to see us follow the political dimensions of this prosecution throughout the world, and I want to be able to track the technical details as they come out (notably, we see Yee talk throughout most of the video, but not during any of the 'anti-Christian' passages that highlight the charges. Hmmmmm....) We therefore have both sound policy and sound motivation to explore this topic in full detail. Wnt (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drishyam(2015)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM KunalForYou ^Contribs ^Talk 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Upon looking up Drishyam (2015 film) I got Papanasam (film). Just wanted to point this out really quick. Wgolf (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Drishyam (Hindi film) or similar - Drishyam as a film (originally produced in the language Malayalam) is already notable. This version in question is a remake in a more widespread language, Hindi. As Wgolf points out there is another version, Papanasam (film), which is in Tamil, and there's also Drushyam in Telugu. I suppose there's a reasonable question to be asked: does notability transfer from one work to another? I think it does in this case since the other two versions are being made on the success of Drishyam. They are inextricably linked. I do wish, however, there were a way to merge all three articles into the main Drishyam article, but that's a different discussion entirely. Anyhow, there are ample sources [36][37][38] and principal photography appears to have begun.[39] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, remakes fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. They might be able to give notability to the original film, but they can't inherit the main film's notability. I don't think I've ever seen an article kept on the basis that it was a remake of something. It'd be interesting if this could be kept on that basis, but I think that it's ultimately going to have to be based on this specific remake's coverage in RS. Since filming has started that's likely going to be enough to keep the article, but I don't think that notability is inherited by something being a remake. I think that the reason for this is that it kind of opens the door for films that are "inspired by" or "taken from" earlier films and that makes it a bit too inclusive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be so bad for newer films where the original work is under copyright and the remake is endorsed by the original copyright holders, but this would be problematic in cases where the original film is in the public domain and someone makes a remake of the film. In other words, if a high school student created a remake of a public domain film then by this concept that student film would be notable, which would be took inclusive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, Tokyo and I'll keep these in mind for the future. I guess what seems unique about this, is that they are multiple remakes within a year or so of the original. But your point is well received. I think there is sufficient RS coverage that makes this remake qualify as notable under GNG. The one thing that makes me a little hesitant to say that the film satisfies WP:NOTFILM is this one line in WP:NFF: Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. The sources I've been able to find say (paraphrased) "principal photography will begin in two weeks", but I'm having trouble finding a source that says, (wishfully paraphrased) "Yeppers, filming has commenced, here's a photo of Ajay Devgan stuffing his face at the craft services table." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've amended my !vote. I'm still good on keeping, but I think we should observe MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion that we rename the article to Drishyam (Hindi film) or some similar phrasing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't contain even a single source. 182.69.59.5 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — 182.69.59.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not accurate. They're just erroneously presented in the External links section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts-

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

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

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

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

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

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

And WP:INDAFD: Drishyam (Hindi film) Nishikant Kamat, Drishyam Ajay Devgn, Drishyam Tabu, Drishyam Shriya Saran, Drishyam Rajat Kapoor, Drishyam Panorama Studios, Drishyam Drishyam remake

Keep per meeting WP:NF through WP:NRVE for this Hindi remake of the 2013 Malayalam film. Currently used sources need reformatting, but they are there. To differentiate and make searches easier, I suggest a move to Drishyam (Hindi film) to separate now and forever from the earlier Drishyam (Malayalam film). There are plenty more sources available with properly set search parameters.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:58, 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, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Kunalforyou & Tokyogirl79 & Wgolf: If you look at the article, you'll see improvements to confirm filming has commenced. Since WP:BEFORE shows the Hindi film version as having extensive coverage AND since the project IS confirmed as filming, Notability per WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Opinions? Keeps now? Withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I never did vote earlier as I was just pointing out the page issue (I was going to do a redirect from 2015 film so the afd wouldn't get confused but couldn't do it) anyway yeah keep. Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets notability with coverage and there is evidence that filming has started. Cowlibob (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Cowlibob —Vensatry _(ping) 08:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMMA for Peace

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

Seems a very worthy organisation but has it established its notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paolo Petrocelli, where it is already mentioned. The founder appears to be notable; the organization does not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With significant coverage in BBC Music Magazine (see also here), the news agency ANSAmed, and the regional Italian newspaper Il Tirreno, we do seem to have "notability": Noyster (talk), 08:50, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to be multiple, reliable sources to just clear notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. Organization is Notable enought to stick at Wiki. Paolo Petrocelli the founder of EMMA is also a Notable subject. Strong Keep! --Khocon (talk) 9:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 19 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Razumov

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

Appears to be a biography of the user. Has zero references, lacks notability. Seems to be an everyday businessman. Nath1991 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he comes close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as there are no references and nothing in the article gives supporting evidence that the person would pass any other inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Annette Moreno. TOOSOON Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extraño mi futuro

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

The user removed the speedy deletion tag. The article does not meet WP:NALBUM. "Radio Viva Top 20" is not a country. Should be redirected to the artist's article Annette Moreno. Karlhard (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Album not yet released, one single has charted, should redirect to the main article. Karst (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three for Happiness

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

There is solely a single short sentence in the article, as far as I'm concerned that's not enough to tell if the article is notable. VS6507 (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multinational releases

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep as it is now expanded to give us some context. Let's spend some time looking through non-English sources for awards and reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the reason I nominated this article is because I couldn't find any reliable sources in Serbo-Croatian, and that single one you added is a primary source from the official website. VS6507 (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just expanded the article with Ivo Škrabalo's views. The film was distributed internationally, was screened at international film festivals, winning some awards, and was the subject of scholarly analysis, so I'd say keep. GregorB (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. The search for sources is difficult... but not impossible. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additions to the article; looks like there's enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Gongshow talk 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close as keep, not to relist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salt. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yaniv

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

This article has been created a number of times:

02:22, June 12, 2008 by Jyaniv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
03:38, August 26, 2014 by Tn blogs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
01:23, September 9, 2014 by TechJournalistInfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would be reasonable to presume that a notable person involved with a notable technology news network would have at least some significant online third-party coverage, aside from directories and so on. While the "TrustedNerd.com" website does exist and its creator is a real person, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject about either the website or the person. Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yaniv is a very well known Canadian journalist on the west coast of Canada who has hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers @trustednerd. I don't agree with this AFD at all. 184.65.101.209 (talk)

Comment Subject does not seem to have any journalist credentials, nor is he affiliated with, or mentioned by, any publication other than his own blog. Twitter followers have little bearing on whether or not a person is notable by Wikipedia guidelines, and the follower history on the @trustednerd account is suspicious. Leaving as "comment" since I initiated the AfD Tophitch (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The independent coverage required for notability has not been found. The Twitter feed reads like a string of adverts, and no basis appears to exist for attributing any credibility to these "reviews": Noyster (talk), 11:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of passing notability standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This guy seems to be creating his own page every time it gets deleted. His social media followers seem to be purchased and the Alexa ranking on his website indicates very little traffic at all. Looks like his online presence exists largely to obtain demo products from tech companies. 206.108.31.36 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lia (artist)

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

Concerned that this artist may not meet our general notability guidelines, let alone our WP:ARTIST guidelines. Perhaps others will prove me wrong - which would be great, if not, it is just no the right time. Has been tagged with notability concerns since 2010. Missvain (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's admittedly hard to search for, but is highly influential in the digital art world. Here's her profile in the Archive of Digital Art. She's been covered and interviewed by Vice's The Creators Project, this Wired blurb is already in the article; you can find her pieces discussed in a number of online curatorial/media outlets (eg Alpha.ville, Cronica, Rhizome); her CV documents quite a few major exbihitions. You can't really see the snippets, but her work is discussed quite a bit in this and this book on digital art. Not a topic area that gets a lot of traditional print coverage, but within her field she's very well-recognized. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (I usually aim for 3 voters but sources have been provided so relisting for a third week is pointless) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cormac McCarthy (musician)

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

The article has one source, the website of the subject. It had had a "primary sources" tag since 2009, and no progress has been made in improving the article. There is no indication that McCarthy comes anywhere close to being notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks borderline, There's a couple of pieces from the Boston Globe ([53], [54]), and a brief bio and a couple of brief reviews at Allmusic ([55], [56], [57]). There may well be more out there. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC) This also seems to have some coverage although GBooks doesn't give us much of a view of it. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These may be enough to establish notability. However they should be incorporated into the article. Otherwise the article will remain unbalanced. I am not convinced they are enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples:

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 10 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'. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lendel Abbott

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

Delete: non-notable per WP:WRITER. Quis separabit? 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources in the article come no where near establishing that Abbott is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content in the article does not establish notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to mIRC. Nakon 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Mardam-Bey

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

Mainly based on information from official homepage, biography of a living person with inadequate sourcing, has been tagged for over 2 years Monni (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to mIRC. In principle, there's something of a case here for notability under WP:CREATIVE, as apparently the sole creator and developer of a widely-used (and undoubtedly notable) computer utility. The problem is that the subject seems to be known for little or nothing else, and sources visible on a Google search give very few personal details about him. Of the current article, some parts are actually more about mIRC than about the subject - otherwise, perhaps half a sentence of basic biographical detail could perhaps be added to mIRC, even if this can only be sourced from primary sources. (I should perhaps finish by remarking that the article has apparently been merged to mIRC twice before - if User:TheCuriousGnome, who reversed this on both occasions, is still around to explain why they weren't happy with merger, I'd like to know). PWilkinson (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mIRC: per the spirit of WP:ONEEVENT. The only thing Khaled Mardam-Bey is known for is mIRC, and pretty much only because his name is on the splash when mIRC opens. ― Padenton|✉ 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps one sentence of this can be copied to mIRC. I do not think this is a case for merging - the subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasah , Padang

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

The article is about a waterfall that may not meet WP:GNG. Google search doesn't seem to return any reliable source. The page reads like an essay, and (if keep) needs to be moved to a better title. It was WP:PROD but the template was removed without reason. Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't find the precise coords but it appears to be in the Harau Valley (here). Google returns many spectacular photos and several hundred other hits (Google for "Sarasah waterfall" in quotes). -Arb. (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existence does not confer notability. "Sarasah" appears to mean "waterfall" in the local Minangkabau language, so it could mean any of the waterfalls in the area. Harau Valley is in Lima Puluh Kota, which is way further inland from Padang. My guess is that the article probably means the Sarasah Gadut waterfall, which was covered in an Indonesia TV news report (Youtube video, also on the Jakarta Globe newspaper website), but I am not sure whether that is sufficient to warrant an article.--Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I dug around and came to the same conclusion as Joshua, I do think that this refers to Sarasah Gadut (some of the features of the waterfall match up), but we'd need a bit more in the way of reliable sourcing for an article. There might be some, systemic bias being what it is, but I've been unable to find it. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I'm trying to find if there is a list of waterfalls for Indonesia which I would say redirect too. but no luck. Maybe something to redirect to but I don't know what! Wgolf (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Rublood. Been up 2 weeks with only one !vote and IMHO outcome's obvious. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 07:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Vampire

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

The album fails WP:NALBUM Karlhard (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 8 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, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:21, 11 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. I personally dislike redirects for spouses, because we never know when or if that will change. Same for presidents or officers of companies. If someone feels strongly enough about us having one, they are free to create it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiladitya Mukhopadhyaya

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

No ounce of third party notability other than the fact that married to an Indian singer called Shreya Ghoshal. Notability is not inherited and this is a fine example of violating that. Only source comes from a The Times of India picture slideshow. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rasilant Technologies, which he co-founded. Alternatively, redirect to Shreya Ghoshal - but I would prefer a redirect to something he himself did, rather than simply treating him as somebody's husband. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 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, Nakon 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shreya Ghoshal. Rasilant Technologies itself is probably not notable enough to warrant survival.--Rpclod (talk) 03:47, 18 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! 08:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Raza Khan

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

Ony one source(themuslim500) lists him and that source itself is not a reputed source nor is the organization which publishes that list is notable AFAIK. No other lists mention him as notable. His name does not appear in any other major sources except referring to this one list of 500 notable , the other reputed news sources only fall back to this sole source. I did find some books mentioning him where not much is mentioned about him except that he heads some institutions of the barelvi sect. Summichum (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources actually really about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 13:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks third party sources and this WP:BLP is based on a single source and secondly the subject has no official position in India.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be reviewed positively’

The article is sourced with a good numbers of links. User:Flat Out has taken back CSD in the light of the sources provided.He is the first reviewer who raised the issue of notability.But now accepted the notability of the subject, see the talk page of the draft.Morever (@Summichum:) themuslim500, compiled by The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre affiliated with The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, is a reputed source that is why the news of 500 influencial muslims list is reported on media all over the world.The same news sources are provided in the draft.If you dont know about something does not make that thing un reputed.Ejaz92 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 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) 07:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country name

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

Neither entry belongs on this so-called dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 12:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unhelpful as a dab page; possibly confusing as a stub. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 13 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 02:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be a Master! Pokemon B & W

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches into Google, Yahoo! and Bing yield nothing substantial, only fan-based/user-generated websites. No mentions of reviews from reliable reporters or awards etc. In, addition, this manga does not have its own page on the Japanese Wikipedia. KirtZJ (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: - Did you search the Japanese title? I also think it may be good to make an inquiry at the Japanese Wikipedia about this topic. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to make an inquiry there. If it was notable, we wouldn't have trouble finding significant coverage. Show me how this is notable. A manga does not get an article simply because it exists. If anything, it gets mentioned in a parent article. —KirtZ^Message 12:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need to make an inquiry there. He's why: the language barrier. I understand that the burden of proof is needed to prove notability and not the other way around, but also please note that many native English speakers may find great difficulty in finding sources in Japanese. Remember that sources in any language may prove notability. Now, if the Japanese fail to find any reliable sources that would cement the case for consolidating this article into a list of Pokemon manga. if they Japanese do find sources, then that cements the case for keeping the article. Anyway, ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers#Question_about_.E7.A9.B6.E3.82.81.E3.82.8D.EF.BC.81.E3.83.9D.E3.82.B1.E3.83.A2.E3.83.B3B.E3.83.BBW_.28Be_a_Master.21_Pokemon_B_.26_W.29 is my inquiry. I also started ja:プロジェクト‐ノート:ポケモン#Help_needed_in_finding_Japanese_sources_for_.E7.A9.B6.E3.82.81.E3.82.8D.EF.BC.81.E3.83.9D.E3.82.B1.E3.83.A2.E3.83.B3B.E3.83.BBW at the Japanese Pokemon WikiProject, and ja:プロジェクト‐ノート:漫画#Help_needed_in_finding_Japanese_sources_for_.E7.A9.B6.E3.82.81.E3.82.8D.EF.BC.81.E3.83.9D.E3.82.B1.E3.83.A2.E3.83.B3B.E3.83.BBW at the Japanese Comics WikiProject. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches imply a search was done in non-English as well... —KirtZ^Message 14:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If one doesn't have any knowledge of Japanese (or Chinese, Korean, Arabic, etc.) it may be difficult to make heads or tails of any of the results one gets. It's necessary to ask people who have knowledge of the language, as they can determine what the sources say, and whether the sources are reliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Came here in response to WhisperToMe's inquiry at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. National Diet Library's Search engine with the option to cross-search within all the cooperating database services turned on returned the manga itself and the NDL itself's index. Neither of CiNii Books' content search nor its Article full-text search returned results. Searching within established news sites using news.google.co.jp (with language set to Japanese) did not return relevant hits. A query on books.google.co.jp returned 6 results, but out of them, four was the author's own work. One predated the date this manga was published and is likely a false positive. Another hit (Manga Science) happens to be a manga I'm personally fond of, but that is an educational manga on science and I am sure that the hit was a false positive. In conclusion, I could not find even a passing mention of the manga in any reliable sources, let alone anything that will let me believe that this manga would be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia unless someone can provide a pointer to a reference that proves otherwise. --朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis! It's disappointing but it's good that this was done. If no further sources are found by the end of this AFD, merge into Pokémon (manga) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

based on the above extensively researched information, you really need to provide an explanation.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources have been found to establish notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Extensive research above suggests lack of notability. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What sourced reliable information is there to merge though? All I see is WP:OR here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete only forty Ghits on this title, and a bunch of them seem to be for a completely different self-published book. It's hard for me to see having an article with a an English language title when there's no real trace of the thing under that title. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Lederman

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

Article makes some bold claims that aren't sourced. Googling only produced self-published material. I suspect it is an auto-biography because the user who wrote also uploaded the image, which the subject uses as a publicity shot. -- haminoon (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little more googling has revealed him to be much more notable than the article previously revealed. -- haminoon (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the jumble of deletion tags (the article had G7 and BLP-PROD tags in addition to AfD), and I've been working on this article for a while. I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC; his publications are few, old, and not widely cited. However, he may be WP:GNG notable, or rather notorious. Virtually all of his publicity is bad. He has gotten a ton of press coverage over legal issues, including a highly-publicized lawsuit from the widow of George Harrison, and a federal lawsuit alleging Medicare fraud. It appears that his treatment methods have been controversial, although I couldn't find significant Reliable Source criticism of his methods. And there are hints that he was forced out at SIUH, but again no confirmation. I could find almost no biographical information. Overall I would say Delete. I think there would be a BLP risk if we write an honest article, and a charge of whitewashing if we leave out all the bad stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep The legal issues and the privacy issues were very well publicized and it should be possible to find more references. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as a physician per the usual criteria (being a leader in the field). MelanieN's comments about whitewashing vs BLP risk seem important. BakerStMD T|C 18:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Haminoon, have you found enough information for him to be notable according to the rules? Do you still think the entr should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its borderline. I'd rather leave it to more experienced editors than myself to decide. -- haminoon (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primarily negative information; tho it's more than one event, none of them are of encyclopedic importance. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Woman's War: Da (Mother)

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

Poor notability and lack of reliable sources. There are only some dependent Iranian references in the article that just introduce the book. There is nothing which can make the book notable. ●Mehran ^Debate● 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, As the page creator I believe that the subject is absolutely notable. To clarify my point, I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (books) where it's mentioned that "A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article." Having the above point in mind, the subject is notable per WP:BKCRIT:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. As the article says, a TV program is adapted from this subject.[58] Also, Aryn Baker, the Middle East Bureau Chief for TIME, had a conversation with Seyyedeh Zahra Hossein, the narrator of the book. [59]
- One Woman's War: Da (Mother) won the title of "selected book" in the second round of Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Awards,"Iran's most lucrative literary award". [60] [61]
- The translator is notable.[62] Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mhhossein. Meets WP:GNG, ~~WP:AUTHOR #3~~ multiple reviews, and has won a significant award. -- GreenC 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got author and book confused, it should be WP:BKCRIT #1. -- GreenC 14:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It won the 2009 Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award (in a category) which is Iran's "most lucrative award". This qualifies for WP:BKCRIT #2 "major literary award". -- GreenC 16:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the following discussions, the awards is not a major one in its own category so it would not bring any notability to the book. ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mhhossein. Meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ism schism:The article is about a book, not an author. So your reasons may be irrelevant here. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment somehow is a !vote. ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User:Green Cardamom has been canvassed here by the article creator[63] and his !vote should be taken with a pinch of salt. The sources cited are worthless, and the award mentioned is one instituted by the totalitarian Iranian government [64][65].--Anders Feder (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on my watchlist. I saw this AfD regardless of what people might post on my talk page and I would have posted here regardless. Most awards in Iran are state, just as they were in the USSR etc.. notability knows no border, if it's notable in Iran it's notable. -- GreenC 22:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was absolutely an Appropriate notification. However, how Iran, Germany, US or any other country is governed has nothing to do with this discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. The totalitarian way Iran is governed precludes reliability, which is a central pillar of notability. As for the notification, there is nothing appropriate about notifying an editor who you know to be disposed to agree with you. User:AliAkar, who has now been blocked for racism and sockpuppetry, tried the same thing with the editor in question.[66]--Anders Feder (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to stay focused on the subject, I don't care how other editors behave. Green is an expert in this field. Mhhossein (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what field? And on the basis of what?--Anders Feder (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that both Anders Feder and Mehran have not edited Wikipedia for a very long time, weeks, then both show up at the same time and place in this AfD and nowhere else. And they are both the only one's voting Delete. And then Anders Feder is throwing around all sorts of bad faith accusations and attempts to frame people for bad behavior. What's going on here? Probably something happening over at the Persian Wikipedia. Anders Feder, is there, how did you find out about this? I don't speak Persian but have access to Google Translate. -- GreenC 04:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what might be happening on Persian Wikipedia. I was following the AliAkar SPI. Mhhossein has edited many of the same articles as AliAkar, including ones on various obscure Iranian books, and has created this one, which you happened to have commented on. That was probably a complete coincidence. If you didn't come here because you was notified, I take your word for it.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green: You can have a brief view of how Anders Feder has acted similarly in the past by checking this link. Mhhossein (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing that link. Tells me all I need to know. -- GreenC 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The references of the article are not reliable at all, they are not independent either. Tebyan, which Mhhossein showed above, had never been a reliable source and everyone who is able to read Persian can confirm it. All the sources are Iranian dependent websites and you could not find any non-Iranian source that covers the article and makes it notable. The translator's article has been created recently and again it is not notable either and probably will be deleted soon. And please watch out your words, you are accusing Anders Feder and me, I can edit in Wikipedia whenever I like and my next edit may be in next 10 years, so please read WP:NPA and be careful for the future not be blocked for your personal attacks. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin on English Wikipedia so don't threaten to block people. If you have a problem with NPA than open a case and lets look all the facts, but given what I have seen it would be a boomerang. -- GreenC 14:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehran: Unlike fa.wikipedia, editors have to act more precise and choose words more carefully here. Your comment needs a huge "clean up"; 1- Please consider that reliability is a relative concept, So you have to mention for what kind of materials a certain source is unreliable (or reliable). 2- per WP:IS, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic". Could you please tell us how you found Tebyan dependent on this subject? Or, could you please tell us what you mean by "independent"? 3- The fact reported by Tebyan is a FACT which is some thing like reporting weather forecast! So, regardless of the source we know that the book had been the subject of a TV documentary. 4-That the The translator's article has been created recently,changes nothing and his page has no influence on his notability. Mhhossein (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you are talking about another Wikipedia project here; 1- This is my job to ask you why you think this is an reliable source? Tebyan is a mirror website, there are lots of copyright violations and non-NPOV contents in it. Of course English people cannot understand Persian and they may be misled by wrong words. 2- Both of Tebyan and Sureh Mehr publications (which has published the book) are subsidiaries of "Islamic Dissemination Organization". 3- The FACT has to be published in a reliable source, Tebyan is even not a reliable weblog! 4- I do not care about the translator, I only answered your first paragraph. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The parent organization, "Islamic Dissemination Organization" or "Islamic Development Organization", was established "by Late Imam [Khomeini]’s command"[67], i.e. it is state-owned. IRIB TV4, where the TV adaptation (not documentary) of the book was broadcast, is also state-owned. So the program clearly fails WP:BKCRIT's requirement that the source be "independent of the book itself".[68]--Anders Feder (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East is east and west is west. I wondered how you could make this inter-relationships! There's actually no vested dependance between the subject and the state TV channel! according to the channel official website, the programs is a documentary. FYI, the English translation is published by Mazda publishers located in US. Mhhossein (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder all you want. Denying reality won't make it go away.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been said in Tebyan that the program has been broadcasted on Channel1, while your latter link has mentioned Channel4. Consider these contradictions, that is why they are not reliable sources. We even do not know if such program has been existed or really broadcasted. Please bring some reliable sources ad then we will talk about it. ●Mehran ^Debate● 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said "you could not find any non-Iranian source that covers the article and makes it notable". Are you saying that on Iranian topics only non-Iranian sources make it notable? Surely you don't mean that, or are you simply misinformed about how notability works? -- GreenC 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have selected one of my sentences and written what you think about it! As I saif before, all of the "Iranian" sources on this article are non-reliable or dependent and I see no reason to repeat here my previous edits again. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you are absolutely right on that.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehran: I think you can read persian, then you will see that Channel 4 broadcasted the program for the "second time"! So, there's actually no contradiction. How funny it would be! Mhhossein (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ●Mehran ^Debate● 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All other things aside, why does the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award not count? I dont see how an award given by a totalitarian regime is any less notable than one given by any other country. Bosstopher (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you think the award counts is up to you and you alone. The notability of the award is not what is being questioned here. It is its reliability as a source. WP:BKCRIT uses the language "major literary award", which isn't very unambigious. Is it major? I don't know. I suppose to someone who supports the Iranian regime, or its legitimacy as an interlocutor of the Iranian people, it might be. But any interpretation that acts as a backdoor around WP:RELIABILITY is invalid as far as I am concerned. And if the award is major, why don't we see an abundance of reliable sources covering the winning book itself?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The book is not notable and the article lacks any reliable sources. Also please discount GreenC's comments as they has been canvassed.Mbcap (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is not what you think it is. The notification was neutral (did not ask to vote a certain way), it was appropriate for an involved editor (I've worked on some of these articles before, including other AfDs, and it was on my watchlist). See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. -- GreenC 03:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also created[69] the article on the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award which is cited here as a source. Certainly your being involved cannot be disputed.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It simply passes notability criteria per WP:BKCRIT #1 and #2. The award adds enough weight to the subject's notability.‬‎--Seyyed(t-c) 03:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Bosstopher and Kraxler comments, the award is not a major one and would not satisfy the criteria then. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator has opened 4 AfDs. They are all article created by User:Mhhossein. The nom has voiced intention to open more AfDs for articles created by Mhhossein - they will be added to this list if so.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A City Under Siege: Tales of the Iran-Iraq War
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Which That Orphan Saw
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

--GreenC 04:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to do so and I will report this in WP:AN. And please read WP:CANVASS too. This is the second time you are talking about irrelevant subjects. ●Mehran ^Debate● 10:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only am I "allowed" to do that as a courtesy to other editors, it's something you should have done yourself which is done all the time when there is a grouping of related AfDs. Are you trying to hide something? -- GreenC 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom :)Ladsgroup^overleg 11:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per other comments above. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HullIntegrity: Which comment exactly? (since the comments mostly are irrelevant to the article topic). Your comment somehow is a !vote. ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up @ Mehran I am specifically agreeing with Seyyed as per WP:BKCRIT #1 and #2. I apologize that you did not understand. I should have made it obvious. I was also unaware of any policy requiring comments on every single vote. If there is such a policy or guideline can you direct me to it? HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HullIntegrity: consensus on Wikipedia is it the result of a vote and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote ^(ref). ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' @Mehran --I was unaware that I was "attempting to structure the AfD process" since I do comment (see, for example, above and below, and my history on AfD and in general), but I will keep your suggestions in mind as we move forward with consensus on this article and any others where we may cross paths. If, in the future, you feel I need instruction on Wikipedia, please consider doing so on my Talk page as it seems inappropriate here. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BKCRIT #1. Even if the sources are influenced by the State, they do not meet the exclusion criteria under BKCRIT#1. These are major sources of news, and therefore the subject is likely to be familiar to a large population, making the topic of encyclopedic value. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per 78.26's comments. Following the "it doesnt count because totalitarian regime" argument, would ultimately mean almost all art, literature and television that comes out of Iran would have to be deleted. Also Note to closing admin this AfD has very likely become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, for a fawiki dispute, please read my comment here for context. Bosstopher (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bosstopher: You are raising the argument that Iranian state sources should not be held to the same standards of WP:RELIABILITY as all other sources lest it would entail a systemic bias against Iran. You are entitled to that view, but the overwhelming consensus is against it.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking that, it was an interesting read. Based on what I said I have to say I partially agree with Seyyed on this. Magazines and papers on zoology and the like published in Iran, should not be considered unreliable just because of political repression in the press. Iran is currently one of the top 10 ranked countries for STEM cell research [isg-mit.org/projects-storage/StemCell/stem_cell_iran.pdf] and high ranking internationally in other scientific sectors. The idea that all scientific papers coming out of the country should be disregarded just because a bunch of Ayatollahs with political influence spend too much time pondering over whether or not touching animals in certain place is Najis, quite frankly seems silly. This article is of course a very different scenario. The sources as it stands seem not to meet the independence standards for BKCRIT, and I didn't realise until now that it didnt win the top Jamal al-Ahmed award, just a minor one. The article also needs MAJOR copyediting work, and some cleanup. However I noticed that the fawiki version of the article has more sources. Could someone who's better than me at reading farsi, check if the sources in that version of the article are independent enough to meet BKCRIT? I've withdrawn my Keep for the meantime. Will work on cleaning up the article if it turns out there's a second independent review. Bosstopher (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosstopher:Thanks for your comment, I checked the sources in fawiki. [70] only contains a news report and there is no review. [71] is not existed. [72] is a news report that the writer tells she is not willing to create a documentary from her book. [73] is a news report about translating the book into English, and into Arabic as well. [74], [75], [76] are dead links, [77] is also a news report and there is no review, and finally [78] tells us that the publication has sold lots of War books in a specific month of the year. I am here to explain more if it is required. P.S: I also nominated the fawiki article for deletion. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that the 895+ cases of political imprisonment registered by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran last year[79] were due to the convicted individuals having "touched animals in certain place" is welcome on the RfC. To the extent that any vitally important stem cell research comes out of Iran, it will almost always be covered by external, reliable sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is from the medical field, the stem cell research standing of Iran is known because their publications are vetted, reviewed and cited by other reliable sources around the globe. This is the same way we establish the correctness of a British published academic article where we apply the same standard as, it is also vetted and cited by other reliable sources around the globe. This book does not even come close to the same standards of verifiability. We should apply these standards equally to all articles, otherwise we will be making articles on all sorts of rubbish books. Mbcap (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I kind of went off topic and failed to clarify. My comments about stem cell research where in reference to claims by Anders on this talk page, that all scientific sources coming out of Iran should be dismissed as unreliable. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, so I've copied it there now. Delete The article per reasoning of Kraxler below, and inability to find a second independent review.Bosstopher (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from Comment)

WP:BKCRIT #1 says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." There are currently 5 refs in the article: #1 is ok; the criteria does not require the source being "reliable" (just look at the wording), the source is required to be independent and to review the book, not just mention it. # 2 is the English version publisher, and thus does not qualify; # 3 and # 5 are links to news channels in Persian language, and is unverifiable right now, some Persian speaker may come forward with a translation, and vouch for it's content, though; # 4 is the original Persian version's publisher, and does not qualify; # 5 has an English version of the news, but searching for Zahra Hosseini yields no results. That leaves us at the moment with exactly one of the required minimum of two non-trivial mentions.

WP:BKCRIT # 2 says: "The book has won a major literary award." The book really won an award in 2009, but did not win the top award, it won in one of the minor categories. While the top award of the Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Awards seems to be the literary prize with the highest award money in Iran, the minor categories may not be major awards under this criterion.

Something that would indicate notability more than these criteria is that the book had more than 100 editions in Iran. That seems to indicate that it was somewhere near the top of some bestseller list, or may be considered important under BKCRIT # 3, but it would need sources to confirm that.

I also beg everybody to discuss the subject of this deletion proposal, and not the !voters' intentions. Also, it is irrelevant whether a single participant here was "canvassed" or "notified" to participate here. This is not a headcount vote, it's a discussion of reasons to include or exlude something, and the decision is made by weighing the arguments. So, please argue. Kraxler (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: You analyzed the article very well, I also strongly second your last sentences. Finally you think this article should be kept or deleted? ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There are now 2 more sources, # 2 mentions the category prize for the book, but does not review it. # 3 does not mention this book at all. It says that the top award is worth 110 gold coins, but we know already that the category prizes receive only about 25 gold coins. The previously numbered sources 2 to 5 are now numbered 4 to 7. Mehran, ~~I've not come to a conclusion yet whether the book should be kept or deleted.~~ after considering the below added sources, I think the article should be kept. Kraxler (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Updated. Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out the internet I found this: Persian Novel ‘Da’ in Spanish, Character of war memoir “Da” dies at 81, The Book DA, A Different Epic of Sacred Defence and An Iranian Woman's Memoir on the Iran–Iraq War: The Production and Reception of "Da". The last one was published in Iranian Studies (Volume 46, Issue 6, 2013) and should qualify as a review under BKCRIT # 1. ~~Maybe somebody weighs the sources and adds something to the article.~~ I have added these sources to the article. There are now three independent reviews, plus miscellaneous coverage, which should be good enough to keep this article. Kraxler (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Updated. Kraxler (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler: Your second source, Tehran Times, is owned by the same entity as the book's publisher, namely Islamic Development Organization.[80] Your third source, IRIB World Service, is owned by the same entity as Islamic Development Organization, namely the Iranian state. Counting Financial Tribune and Iranian Studies as independent, which one is the third independent review?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Mehr News Agency, referred to above as "ok", is also owned by Islamic Development Organization.[81]--Anders Feder (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources should be "independent of the subject", that means in this case "not directly envolved in the production and (for economical reasons) the promotion of the book". Tehran Times and IRIB are independent enough under these guidelines, they did not produce the book, and they do not primarily promote the book, but rather comment on what interests their readers/listeners. Kraxler (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a novel interpretation of independence. The notes on WP:NBOOK says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough"[82] and that one should be "careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source" considered.[83]--Anders Feder (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you would throw out a New York Times review of this book if you found out that one Iranian citizen bought one share in the paper's holding company? Ok, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I suppose you would vote for the deletion of Earth because, we can safely agree on that, there are no sources independent of that subject, they were all published on Earth.

You see, to define "independence" (under the rules cited by you) is not as easy as you think. I still hold the view that neither the Tehran Times nor IRIB are in any way commercially interested in the sale of the book, or that their reviews have been the cause that 150 editions have been sold by now. They reviewed the book because, for whatever reason, it's something that interested their readers. So, Anders, what about this review found by Drako? Is the University of Tehran independent of the subject? Kraxler (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the addition of sources, the numbering led to some confusion. The Tehran Times did not review the book. They published an obituary of a person whose only "claim to fame" was having been the real-life counterpart of one of the main characters of this book. The book was reviewed by IRIB, the outside Iran published academic journal Iranian Studies, and the University of Tehran's Sociological Journal of Art and Literature, currently refs # 6, 7 and 8. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related ANI discussion that involves this AfD. -- GreenC 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear enough notability ,considering the difficult we have in sourcing these at the enWP. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all previous discussions it is clear the book is not notable. please explain more for us why you think the book is notable? ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the book may have the local notability, the context should be changed. Several parts need more significant references as well as the propaganda which must be deleted. For instance, how important is the statement of the author about Gaza? Why isn't cited to TIME instead of a local web-site?--Sahehco (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per source-Samək^Talk 10:59, 1 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per decent sourcing, passes GNG. Cavarrone 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kraxlr after a lot of horrible flipflopping. Bosstopher (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If notability is the concern of worldwide recognition ignoring the notability in region or popularity in culture then we may discuss further. Otherwise notability in the region and in its customs is apparent itself. In this sense deletion does not cover the parameter of deletion. Nannadeem (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the book has been subject of deep coverage in independent reliable sources. Namely, the academic journal Iranian Studies has published a detailed critique of the book [84], Farsi academic journals have also published multiples articles on it [85][86]; SOCIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF ART AND LITERATURE (published by the University of Tehran) Abstract in English .--Drako (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gottschall

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

If we take this article on good faith (i.e., assume it isn't a hoax), the story seems to be the following: someone rediscovered the works of an obscure 17th-century composer, published them in three volumes, set up a website, and is offering them for sale — for a cool $1,199.00.

OK, fair enough. Still, this encyclopedia does rely on reliable, published sources. Preferably ones not linked to someone selling a product. (If you search for strings of words from the article, you'll find they precisely match this page, although it's been taken down. That might even be grounds for speedy deletion as a copyvio.) And aside from this one website, I can find nothing about a Samuel Gottschall who lived from 1719 to 1811. Now, if at some point in the future, he makes it into Grove or some other standard works about music history, great. I'll have no objection to including his biography. But as things stand, there simply isn't enough verifiable independent content to justify an article. Our job here is to reflect notability as it currently exists, not generate notability for entities that don't have it by the usual means (multiple, independent, published sources.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-known search engine, excluding the advertised website and this WP page, lead me to worldreligionnews.com (no comment about reliability), which pointed to the Daily Mail. There is a music score in the pictures at the end though nothing is mentioned. However, this Samuel Gottschall lived during WW2 (and I do not think even the DM article makes him notable, but that's another story).

It's either a forgery inspired from the real story, or a completely unnotable homonym. Either mandates deletion. Tigraan (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Notability is not clear at all from the one source cited in the article, nor is it clear that this is the same Samuel Gottschall whose mementoes were found in the attic in Slovakia. His name does not appear in any reference work of composers. Delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi all. We're working on publishing the appropriate sources for this. As you can tell from the article, they're not exactly in the world's knowledge set, but we have them. The copyright of the bio page on the website was released into the public domain by the author for publishing here, and was subsequently removed from SamuelGottschall.com. Reviewing the Notability guidelines suggests that this article does conform to a minimum acceptable level of notability. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you do not understand what the guidelines say... If the references are obscure and unheard of, they are not sufficient (vast simplification here, but the point remains). Please quote reliable sources that establish that SG (1) existed and (2) made significant contributions to music (or Jewish music in the 19th at the last) or was notable for other reasons.

If no such source is to be found, it does not mean that SG never existed, or even that he wasn't notable in his time; but it does mean we should not include him in WP because it is just impossible to check. Tigraan (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reliability from WP:SPS: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." The author of SamuelGottschall.com is Gayther Myers, a composer in New York City. Studied at Julliard, Oberlin, Mozarteum. He has been mentioned in numerous sources and has self-published his earliest findings about SG, which are summarized in this Wikipedia entry. His age and scholarly work makes him exactly the kind of expert we look to for publishing verifiable, independent primary sources. The work itself has been scanned from its original manuscripts, photos of the gravestone were taken, a prayer book has been recovered. He has not masked his identity or published anonymously. While he does have a price tag attached to the publication of the work, this does not violate WP:SPS, as the product being sold is over 1,700 pages long and printing, binding, and shipping the work is not free, but this is clearly not a "for profit" enterprise, as it is intended to be acquired by universities and collectors as the only mass-produced copy of the work in the world. Therefore, this obviously satisfies reliable sources. Regarding notability: SG was a composer for kings and a collaborator with Haydn; that is notable by any definition of the word. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The high price tag makes me guess it is a for-profit enterprise. But we do not care the least: whether GM is a greedy scammer that is selling a forgery at gold price or a honest lover of SG who wants to share his music with the rest of the world is irrelevant. Either way, Gayther Myers is not a independant source of what he publishes. If you prefer, money is a powerful creator of conflicts of interest, but not the only one.
From a quick internet search, there is no evidence that Gayther Myers is notable whatsoever beside what you just said ("He has been mentioned in numerous sources"), and I have the healthy habit to doubt anything that could be linked if true but comes unlinked.
Even if GM was the most notable musician and music scholar of the last century, there would be no evidence that he is the one publishing the website (I can write on my website that it is written in collaboration by Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, they would probably not bother denying). (I would be ready to trust your word here, but the guidelines demand a source.)

You will understand from these, that it does not "obviously" satisfies WP:RS. Finally, "SG was a composer for kings and a collaborator with Haydn; that is notable by any definition of the word" runs straight against WP:NOTINHERITED for the Haydn part and is seriously limited for the "kings" part; add to that that the aforementioned healthy habit suggests to me this claim ought to be sourced.

Tigraan (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. While SamuelGottschall.com could be established as a reliable secondary source, this needs more peer review in the third-party literature. I'll vote for Delete, which brings us to consensus. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hum no, I do not quite see how samuelgottschall.com could possibly be a secondary source for Samuel Gottschall... It is just like a company's website: although companyX.com is probably reliable in the sense it will usually publish reliable information such as the CEO's name, postal address etc., it is certainly not the place to read unbiaised commentary about their latest dumping of oil in the local river.

Now for the technicality, if you change your !vote, you should strike the previous !vote, using the ( <s> text to be striked </s> ) syntax. Tigraan (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Secondary source here, page 11, bottom paragraph http://issuu.com/nycc/docs/program6-7-2008 @SmithAndTeam (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid one line in a concert program attests nothing about the notability of a classical musician. An entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Harvard Dictionary of Music or The Oxford Companion to Music would be rather more convincing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly a mention of his musicianship in Jewish sources is also called for. Yoninah (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of Gottschall's compositions appeared in a collection of Jewish melodies compiled by Lewandowsky in the 19th century as "anonymous" -- these composition match Gottschall's arrangements of Emet Ve'emunah and Adoshem Malach. See a transcription here: http://samuelgottschall.com/music/emet-veemuna-p64/ 50.135.255.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-published source on samuelgottschall.com. Yoninah (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the sources for this are Lewandowsky's text and the scans of the music in question, neither of which is self-published. The imperative against self-published sources is intended in the spirit of the rule to prevent people from publishing their own primary research as fact. SamuelGottschall is not a source for either of these claims -- the sources are in the public domain. 50.135.255.25 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So please provide an independent, third-party reference that connects these anonymous works to Gottschall. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article lacks large number of sources and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has criteria that subjects have to meet to merit a Wikipedia article. The standards are low and this subject is not meeting those low standards. This fails WP:GNG and other specialized WP:N criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources (only coverage I see is for different people with the same name). Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Veera M

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 per WP:TOOSOON and other arguments. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well the prod was removed (well it was a BLP prod) this actor falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - lead roles in Mosakutty and a new film; good coverage online in English in WP:RS including two interviews in national media (I haven't searched for coverage in Tamil yet); the Times of India ref says the new film in production is notable because he's in it. Notable per WP:NACTOR. Dai Pritchard (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his career in acting started less than 2 years ago, He's young and his notability could easily increase with his career. but where his notability is at now I don't see it meeting it when I do a google search for 3rd parties. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON, a single significant role in a notable film and the related coverage is not enough for a claim of notability. As usual, the article was created by a SPA editor with the only goal of promoting the relevant film. Cavarrone 11:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormantos: I notice that you've written on your user page, "I am confused why BLP is the only option to judge notability." In fact, that's not a standard on which to judge notability at all. The standard for notability in biographies is WP:BIO. I also see that after creating an account today, you've commented in a large number of AFD biography discussions. Please familiarise yourself with WP:AFD and WP:BIO, before requesting deletion in a biographical AFD. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has been blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that comment and was going "really? Its far from the shortest article and if we really didn't think it qualify it be csd" Wgolf (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON and the 1-hit wonder one too. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

LANGERLAND.TV

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 Colm Tobin. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Once-off show sourced entirely to a TV listing and the network's website. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Colm Tobin (or Langerland.com if an article is ever created for the website): I did a quick Google search and turned up the following -

Irish Independent - Admittedly just another TV guide, but this one goes into quite a bit more detail on the show than the one currently in use as a reference.

The Herald - Only a two sentence blurb, but this one actually reviews the show, which, brevity aside, goes a long way toward establishing notability and allowing for quality article construction.

Cork Independent - A profile on Colm Tobin, one of Langerland.TV's creators.

Tobin already has an article of his own, and while it doesn't make any mention of Langerland.TV, information about his involvement with the series could be added from the Cork Independent article. I el like there might be some good potential refs floating around out there for the website, in which case someone who wants to take the time could create an article on Langerland.com and incorporate info about the TV show there. In the mean time though, Tobin's article is probably the best place for this. --Jpcase (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin does not have an article of his own. Clearly this mistake has been made before, as he very emphatically says himself on his Twitter: "I am NOT the writer Colm Tóibín." He does not match the link provided to the "novelist, short story writer, essayist, playwright, journalist, critic and poet" and top-300 intellectual. --Greykit (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for catching that! :) All the same, the Cork Independent article (which I just noticed I had incorrectly linked to, but have fixed), along with this article [87] from the Irish Times that I just found, suggest that Tobin is notable enough to receive an article of his own. So I stand by my vote. And yes, it would seem that he has been mistaken for Tóibín quite a bit, as he even relates an amusing anecdote about it in the Irish Times article. --Jpcase (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to extract information from the sources, squeezing out of them all that I can.

Some observations on the sources themselves:

Of the three sources that are about the show, two are definitely by the same writer, while the third could easily be as well, since I can locate no name in it and all three are published by the same company.
The sources provide a total of 1 sentence, 2 sentences and 4 sentences of reading respectively. Many of these sentences repeat similar things. Their quality leaves a lot to be desired (what is one to do with, for instance, "The gentleman pictured may look a bit like Bert from Sesame Street, but given the backdrop and that insanely optimistic expression I'd say he's supposed to be Mick McCarthy"? That is one of the 7 sentences).
None of the sources focus even as much as a quarter on this specific show. It could easily be missed if it wasn't being searched for. --Greykit (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not suggesting that we keep this article. Just that we create an article for Tobin and include some sort of mention of Langerland.TV there. --Jpcase (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and changed Colm Tobin from a redirect to Colm Tóibín into its own article. So if we're in agreement, then we can go ahead and merge LANGERLAND.TV into that article. --Jpcase (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it as there have been no further comments for more than two days and no better suggestion in nearly two weeks. I'm not sure there's anything that can be merged. --Greykit (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colm Tobin. User:Greykit - do not remove an AfD tag from an article while the discussion is still open. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything. Apart from which, I put it there in the first place(!) I withdraw the nomination, if that's any help. --Greykit (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Michig: Actually, it would have been fine if Greykit wanted to withdraw the nomination, per WP:WDAFD - though admittedly, in that case, a note should have been left on this page. I have to say, I'm a little bit surprised that the admin decided to relist this discussion, seeing as though it seems that all of the important points have already been evaluated and agreed upon. But I guess there's no harm in waiting another week and seeing if anyone can bring something new to the discussion. --Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have been fine. There does appear to be consensus already - just a matter of whether there's any more to be merged to the Colm Tobin article - presumably you are happy for this to be closed now as a redirect? --Michig (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this article has a bit of information that I didn't include in the Colm Tobin article, it doesn't look like any of it can be referenced, and I'm not sure how appropriate it would be in Tobin's personal article anyway. So yes, I think the way to go would be to close the discussion as a redirect. --Jpcase (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tournai Phoenix

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canvassed vote discarded Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florescu brothers

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

I proposed merging this article, but received an objection from a single-edit account, so I've come to AfD to hopefully sort things out.

Basically, the only remotely noteworthy achievement of these two individuals consists in having directed So Bright Is the View, itself a film of borderline notability. The entirety of what exists about them - much of this material being of dubious quality - revolves around said film. If they go on to make other films, have other achievements, or receive coverage independent of the film, we should perhaps reconsider, but for now, a standalone article simply isn't justified. All that can be said about them can easily be said in the article on the film, and they do not meet the criteria set out at WP:ARTIST. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the Basic Criteria. If the basic criteria has not been met, then reference should be made to the Additional Criteria. The Basic Criteria are as follows: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Basic_criteria). The coverage qualifies, with multiple independent and reputable sources from various publications (none of which is dubious, and none which qualifies as a "self-published or questionable source"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). Finally, whether the film is good or bad is not relevant. Whether it is a blockbuster hit or an indie/arthouse flick is also not determinative. However, the film's premiere in the Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival (a "significant exhibition") and its subsequent acquisition for distribution in North America is indicative, for better or worse. Paperpencils (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)paperpencils — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Paperpencils (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils[reply]

- That's a nice spin on WP:ARTIST point 4, but I'm afraid it isn't going to fly. The clause provides that "the person's work.... has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Now, it's true that the MIFF is a significant exhibition, but it's not true, at all, that the Florescus' film formed "a substantial part" thereof. Well over a hundred films played at that festival, and only one of theirs - indeed, the only film they've ever made - was exhibited. In no sense does that constitute a "substantial part". Especially as their film was not even in competition.
- As for the rest, this is about the film (and is a blog post, one of those dubious sources I mentioned), this is about the film, this is about the film, this is about the film, this is about the film, and the remaining two are about their uncle. So, no, the brothers have not in fact received anything remotely approaching the standards set by WP:BIO. I'm still waiting to hear a plausible explanation as to why they are notable, as defined by one of our guidelines. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their one film is not enough to establish their notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~KeepSuperseded by later keep vote with clearer rationale below~~ "Additional Criteria" is not necessary, as "Basic Criteria" is already met, i.e. significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. "Additional Criteria" do not need to be met, as the subjects of the article are notable for two events: the making of So Bright Is the View, and the creation of the Romanian Independent Film Collective, the first democratic film collective in post-Revolution Romania, where independent, non-state financed and non-corporate financed film is a rarity. Nevertheless, the "Additional Criteria" is also met under WP:Filmmaker. Official Selection of an FIAPF Category A film festival is a substantial part and distinguishes films of artistic merit from films there for the "film market" and other non-Official Selection films (e.g. commercial premieres, retrospectives). Biruitorul is incorrect to say that the film is one out of 100, as the list he provided is not a list of films in Official Selection but of all films presented. He misunderstands film festival terminology. WP:Filmmaker therefore met. Of course most of the articles are going to be about their film, because they're filmmakers.

Paperpencils (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)paperpencils[reply]

Merge I am the creator of both articles. Biruitorul wants to merge this article with the film, not to delete the information. I see no problem with merging the articles. Marian1981 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I have merged the pages, in accordance with what Biruitorul wishes. I have done my best to make it look right. There is now no need for more discussion on this.~~ Marian1981 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are there any sources that contain biographical information on the brother beyond a very brief outline of their film career? If not, then merging to their only film seems like a good idea. Irregardless of notability, if there is no additional RS information about the brother than what is already in the article it doesn't make much sense to have separate film & biographical articles. That isn't a judgement on importance (which is what notability often means in the real world, but NOT what it means on Wikipedia), just a reflection of the best way to organize our content. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Paperpencils: Articles should not be merged while being discussed at AfD. Therefore, I have reverted you. Mdann52 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify, it is Marian1981, not Papercencils1, who keeps trying to short circuit the AfD and merge the article prematurely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~No one is discussing anything.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils1 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met: Multiple independent reliable sources. If someone disputes this, let him call out a specific source and name it as unreliable. The nominator has only claimed that one is a blog. The rest are reliable and even the one he has named doesn't appear to be a blog. (Update: I have removed the alleged blog and the somewhat redundant sources). Therefore WP:GNG are met. No need for Additional Guidelines once WP:GNG are met. Furthermore, the subjects of the article do not meet the three necessary conditions that "each" need to be fulfilled to call for merging under WP:BLP1E. Size of the article is a fallacious argument, per Wikipedia rules (WP:ASZ). Finally, at least two out of the three (and possibly three out of three) "reasons to avoid merging" are present: Merging would be clunky with inappropriate biographical information appearing on the film's article, and the topics are discrete subjects "even though they might be short" (WP:MERGEREASON). To say an article looks good or looks too small are fallacious arguments (WP:ATA). The rules of Wikipedia should be read and respected to maintain an open, inclusive and enthused community and to prevent arbitrariness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs)

Keep. Though the article is a short stub and would hopefully be expanded in time, the sources show notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator - this vote was canvassed: see here. As a quid pro quo, the canvassed user asked for a vote on another AfD, which was given by the original canvasser. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - False That's not right. Check the timing of all the posts. There was no "quid pro quo." I asked for his input. I also asked for other people's input above, all of which turned out to be against my vote. You seem to jump to negative conclusions easily.
    - By all means, let's check the times.
- 19:16 - Paperpencils canvasses Billy Hathorn.
- 19:22 - Billy Hathorn promises his vote and canvasses for another AfD.
- 19:26 - Billy Hathorn votes here, delivering on his promise.
- 19:37 - Paperpencils performs quid pro quo, voting where Billy Hathorn directed him to.
  - - So, yes, we have a classic case of canvassing combined with a quid pro quo, an exchange of votes. Something that is, of course, not allowed under WP:CANVASS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what happened between him "promising" his vote and him voting? Nothing. Thank you for proving my point for me.
        There was no "promise" to begin with. What are we arguing about here?
        I'm done with this particular discussion, and will wait for the closing administrator to decide what to make of the situation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated I’ve added a source on the Florescu Brothers article by Mediafax. I don’t think anyone can dispute the reliability of Mediafax, a news agency (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_news_agencies). For those of you who aren’t Romanian, it’s Romania’s equivalent of Reuters or AP. The article isn’t too long but it references the brothers and their history, going beyond the film. The brothers were notable enough even to be named in the title, which makes sense because they are quite well-known among Romanians in the art film/indie circuit. Hopefully this will end the discussion. But I would’ve liked us all to have had a kinder debate. I think I might have made some mistakes, and I’m sorry. I’m new here and so I’m clumsy. Paperpencils (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils[reply]
- No, this will certainly not "end the discussion", which is scheduled to run through April 1 (one week after it began). Because the link you've added, based on a press release, more or less includes the exact same text as this and this, both of which were already cited in the article — in other words, you've added nothing new. Like the filmreporter and cinemarx pages, this article deals with the film and its screening at the MIFF, not primarily with the directors of the film. Yes, they are mentioned in passing, and they should be mentioned in passing in the article on their film, but thus far, nothing you've brought forth either deals primarily with the brothers, or validates a separate article based on any reasonable interpretation of the biographical notability criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not mentioned "in passing." Half of the sentences in that article refer to them! More than half if you include the title! They are a substantial part of the article. Yes, I agree that there could be some duplicate information between this and the other sources, but if you want, you can take down the sources you think are redundant. So at this point are the sources reliable? Yes. Now the only question is whether all the information from the two pages should be on two pages or one. If you think it's appropriate for biographical information on the directors to be present on the page about the film, then that's an opinion you and I don't share, and I've addressed these arguments above in my "Keep" Vote. Let's just agree to disagree for now and let the admins decide. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of the brothers in this piece of news (other than the one that cites their opinion on the film) is in the last phrase that states "The Franco-Romanian twins Michael and Joel Florescu have begun their filmmaking projects in Bucharest, as part of the Romanian Independent Film Collective, a group of professionals and amateurs in the movie business, that was assembled and is functioning based on democratic principles." - actually, most of this phrase is about the group they are with.- Andrei (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the article refers to them. The third paragraph is about, of all things, their educational background and about their aesthetic style. The fourth paragraph refers to their production method and views on independent filmmaking. The last paragraph refers to their ethnic origins and the beginning of their creative efforts. Short of an explicit biography, you can't ask for much more. If you want to help expand this admittedly short page, then please go ahead as there is more than enough information to do so. Lastly, as a matter of fact, "their opinion on the film" is never even stated.
~~"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" WP:GNG. The admins may use Google Translate to verify.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film, though eventually they probably will deserve this article! Wgolf (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: The checkuser findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paperpencils are relevant to this discussion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier for the closing administrator, I've struck all the comments of the socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. After two weeks of discussion, I doubt we're converging towards any particular consensus. The previous AfD was 5 years ago (and the article in its current form talks about events after 2010) so speedy G5 definitely doesn't apply. Der yck C. 13:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AutoAnything

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

This has been deleted several times in the past, but the article is considerably expanded, so I am not comfortable with speedy G5. There seems to be extensive advertising, but also a negative analysis of its web site & the position of its stock in sections which does have references, but seem greatly excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any specific sections which you see as advertorial? RobBertholf (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the version by User:AplombBomb is quite improved over clearly promotional versions from years ago. If we take a look at similar wikipedia articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States we will see a number of similar companies which have not been nominated for deletion and have less notability and citations: MagnaFlow_Performance_Exhaust, CSK_Auto, Pep_Boys, JC_Whitney, Western_Auto. VIP_Parts,_Tires_and_Service, Carquest, Belle_Tire, etc. If the other articles warrant their spot surely this one does too. I think the answer should be identifying any specific areas in the article which are problematic and flag them for a resolution rather than arbitrarily removing it all together. RobBertholf (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect - and this is not a guideline - but I recommend that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other, related articles isn't a justification for this article to exist. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this, I will read now. All constructive criticism is appreciated. RobBertholf (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would there be "inherent notability" for any article in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category?RobBertholf (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would not say so, no. A business should ideally have a Wikipedia article due to coverage in reliable, secondary sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we are to judge each article on it's own merit (as it should). This company is clearly notable and I believe AplopBomb did a good job at adding citations and keeping the article neutral. Looking at past versions which clearly should have been deleted, there is a significant change in the current article. If there are any specific items in the article you or the nominator can recommend changing I would be happy to make the changes. I went out of my way to augment this article and would hate to see it all lost. Wish the original author would also chime in. RobBertholf (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. Like the nominator, I'm concerned about the tone; however, I feel that it should not be difficult to fix the tonal issues with the article, though these fixes definitely have to be made for me to be okay with the article remaining on Wikipedia. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad to help with tonal issues if you or the nominator can advise what aspects in particular are of concern, any advice you could give would help me understand how to create better wiki articles. Possibly the original poster could help fix as well. Not sure how I would reach AplopBomb but I will leave a not on their talk page. RobBertholf (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - From a quick read through, the "other services and endeavours" could be cut down to just be a sentence or two as part of the main history, and the website redesign section could go for some trimming. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AutoAnything lacks notability for me, When you google them you get their pinterest, their Facebook, linked in, groupon, etc. so I see a ton of stuff about them, but nothing out of the norm of any other business. The purchase of Autoanything buy Autozone is notable but one notable paragraph can't justify an entire article when we have an article that paragraph can go into. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that sources are pretty good, you have ones talking about its sale, its profits, and a book source talking about the website design. AplombBomb (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is consistent with articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category, it has undergone intensive rewrite to include more citations than any other article in its category and does not read as promotional. If there are problematic areas of the article trim them down but the article should stay. RobBertholf (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are inappropriate and the burden is not on the reviewers here to sort them. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are low and this article does not meet those low standards in any obvious way. Someone can point out the 2-3 solid sources which establish WP:GNG or name another criteria that this passes, or otherwise I am comfortable deleting this without further consideration. This article is in opposition to Wikipedia standards and anyone comfortable spending the time to write and re-write it ought to be comfortable meeting Wikipedia's standards too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that some of the sources are niche, but there's definitely coverage of the subject in sources important to the industry, including a book explicitly discussing the quality (or lack thereof) of its website AplombBomb (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Struck duplicate !vote Hobit (talk)), This is a well formed article improved by User:AplombBomb after Senior Editor III User:New_Age_Retro_Hippie provided guidance on problematic areas.
- WP:PLENTY Well written article with plenty of relevant citations.
- WP:Clearly notable Authority for automotive accessories as indicated by numerous top positions in Google Searches for notable keywords such as "rims" (#4), "headlights" (#3), "floor mats" (#3), "seat covers" (#2), "tonneau covers" (#1), etc.
- WP:GOOGLEHITS Google returns about 971,000 results for this term. ^[1]
- WP:BIG Ranked #2,864 in the United States on Alexa and #11,519 most popular site in the world. ^[2]
- WP:ALLORNOTHING The article is consistent with articles in the Category:Automotive_part_retailers_of_the_United_States category
- WP:MERCY WP:PLEASEDONT I spent some effort on this one and now feel invested in it. Please have mercy and do not delete :) RobBertholf (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, these aren't actually guidelines - they are, in fact, links to "arguments to avoid." Being big, having many sources, being in top positions for Google search results, having many Google hits, having similar articles, these aren't reasons to keep an article. Pleading is also definitely not a reason - while Wikipedians don't want to upset people, and people should be respectful in these discussions to those defending an article's existence, it shouldn't be a reason to keep.
  - With that said, I'm not convinced that the article does not satisfy notability criteria. It does have tonal issues and some sourcing issues, but it has enough decent sources that cover it in a nontrivial manner that I can't agree on the sources being problematic. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - So that sounds like a Keep New Age Retro Hippie? @Rob talk 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, as I've said. If you think that you need to re-"vote" Keep or Delete following the relisting, you don't - it's merely there to get more input from more people. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to AutoZone which now owns AutoAnything. I am not that impressed with the references and I'm inclined to think the company never did meet the requirements of WP:CORP, but a redirect and merge would keep some of the information here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, IMHO AutoAnything met GNG before AutoZone acquisition and serves a different market (Retail vs Online). Recommend keeping as is. @Rob talk 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "About 971,000 search results". Google. Retrieved 2015-04-02.
^ "Alexa Ranking". Retrieved 2015-04-02.

Keep a little of it. It's notable enough. Shouldn't be more than a paragraph or two of straight facts, though. - Richfife (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per MelanieN. Between the spammy nature of the article, WP:CORP and the lack of solid sources, I don't think we should have this as a stand-alone article. Hobit (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Steelers

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charleroi Cougars

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liège Monarchs

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. Sam Walton (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grez-Doiceau Fighting Turtles

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

' Merge and redirect' Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; I assume the oher teams in the league will be treated similarly. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The Andenne Bears article has already been merged and redirected, and there are pending AfDs for each of the other teams in the league. Don't forget to register your opinion in each of those AfD discussions, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so I did, but you forgot to nominate La Louvière Wolves . I'll comment in this field, if its as obvious as this. but I'd rather not nominate DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ligue_Francophone_de_Football_Amercain_de_Belgique as suggested above. Appears to be an amateur sports team only slightly more serious than a social football club. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivonne Soto

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

Unotable actress-her Spanish wiki has been deleted twice even. Wgolf (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling the actress and looking at the article history I don't see enough material here to make an article out of. Maybe in the future if she has more notability down the road. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being an actress is not enough to be notable. Needs significnat roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In theory, an article could be created from the news sources at Google. That having been said, she's more a minor celebrity, it appears from glancing at the Spanish headlines, than a genuine actress. Does anybody have bueno Spanish skills who's willing to write a decent stub upon userficacion? Bearian (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well I took Spanish in HS but of course I really don't remember lol. Wgolf (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Newstone

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 based on the balance of policy-based arguments. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Presently almost unsourced. Couldn't find even trivial mention in the web, likely fails WP:BIO. Brandmeister^talk 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not given the chance to add the reffernece list!

For notable publications by the artist first see, Suite: The Humber Bridge - can be found whaen typed into bing He is listed as David J Newstone, on that record, . As i stated i did not get the chance to list all other records, for example, Old Faithful, come on you 'ull etc.

it seems no effort was put into the internet search before the banner went up!

The page is on a musician local to Yorkshire and the humber, who has had hits with songs,like old faithful. He is well known in the hull area. And has worked with notable stars. After an interview with this indervidual i decided to add him to wiki as i could not find him listed. I know he may not be known to people outside of yorkshire but this does not mean that he is not woth listing. While i am starting the page there are others who wish to maintain it. Please state why you feel this person is not worth listing as many others he has worked with are on wiki. Balypu^talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm all for articles that show potential being given the chance to grow into great articles, I just don't think there's enough material here to add onto it. I googled David Newstone and didn't find anything standout in the first 3 pages. If the article had more to go on maybe, but as is I don't even know what the guy looks like to possibly try and add more. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it says there is more to be added including images and refs but it is stated that there is no point if it is being deleted . There are many individuals on wiki who are hard to find on the web. I followed the instruction on the humber bridge info and found this person, he wrote and composed both the rock and orchestral pieces. I feel people like this seem to be forgotten to easy. Give the guy a chance to build the page before jumping to deletion.

Suggestion It appears that this article was created directly in article space, rather than in a users sandbox or as a draft or via AFC
Balypu is complaining "I was not given the chance to add the reffernece(sic) list" and 109.155.97.173 states "it says there is more to be added including images and refs but it is stated that there is no point if it is being deleted"
Suggest article is moved to draft, or users sandbox, where they can add the relevant information, rather than rushing to add this now, or not bothering if it is going to be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was in the process of cutting and pasting from a word doc, and within 2 min the bannar for SD went up, so i stopped working on it.Balypu^talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria at WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any indication he meets WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinhwa filmography

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

This article is supposed to be a Shinhwa filmography, but a lot of what's listed are individual film and TV drama roles by its members, which are already listed on the individuals' articles. Shinhwa only appeared in one film together (a cameo in one that a whole ton of groups were also in). Other than that, it's a list of variety show appearances, both group and individual, and a poor one at that as there is hardly anything listed for 1998-2011, even though the group (known as the original "variety show idols") had a huge amount of variety show appearances during that time. But regardless, it's already been established that indiscriminate lists of variety show appearances are not appropriate for Wikipedia anyway. There might be a little bit of info on here that hasn't made it to one or more members' articles, but I think it'd be easier to selectively move the info (which I'll do) instead of trying to figure out which of seven potential articles to merge it to. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like saying this, but yeah, "per nom", basically. Once this is properly pruned there is no reason this should be an article at all. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Shinhwa article per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the group's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. My suggestion that the information be merged is meeting with too much confusion. Any editor who wishes can expand and add it to the article whenever they wish it. No need to state the obvious. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said the same thing on every AFD discussion, and I'm confused as to where I said filmography articles aren't allowed? Just to clarify, I never said that. I said huge lists of variety show appearances aren't appropriate. Of course filmographies are allowed on Wikipedia and can be very good articles. :) Also, what content do you suggest be merged back into Shinhwa? Shinyang-i (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schmidt, since you misread the original EXO deletion then copied and pasted your incorrect statement to all Shinyang-i 's other nominated deletions could you please correct that statement now? It is confusingly out of context on all the pages and clearly you'er the one that is saying misinformation at this point. If you are not going to use watch notifications or check back on these discussions then you really shouldn't spamming a bunch at a time without even reading them once carefully. Thank you. Peachywink (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a lost point... a list that has specific and discriminate inclusion criteria is not "indiscriminate", but I have struck my merge. List articles ARE indeed ALLOWED on Wikipeida, (MOS:LIST, WP:LISTPURP, WP:SALAT) so any claim that they are inappropriate is misleading. Any editor who wishes can add sourced information to the Shinhwa whenever they wish. I do not have to suggest it here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now you've expanded your claim that I said filmographies aren't allowed to encompass all standalone lists. I'm going to go bang my head against the wall for a few minutes now, and hopefully when I return this will all be over. Thank you. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol Shinyang-i I love you, stay strong.Peachywink (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete salvage what you can to be merged back into the main article but that is the tragedy of the older groups. Getting sources for Shinwah's early tv shows, even though they were a big deal and did so much at the time... its beyond my and I'd say most peoples capabilities to find the article references.Peachywink (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge As per the nom's observations and various comments above, this content is all better covered in the articles for the individual members of the group; collecting it in one location here on the tangential link that these individuals happen to be in a band together is a clear case of the type of arbitrary cross-categorization that WP:WWIN advises us against. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apink filmography

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

The result was Delete The principal reason for inclusion appears to be that without this article, endless fancruft gets added to the main article. It would be hard to think of a worse rationale for having an article. Policy-based arguments for deletion win the day. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another group filmography which is actually a list of TV/film appearances by individual members along with an enormous list of variety show appearances. The latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia and thus I don't see a real purpose or need for this article. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (see also my comments on WP:Articles for deletion/EXID filmography). The only thing I would possibly keep is the table under "Reality series", which can be merged to Apink#Filmography. Random86 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Apink per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the group's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. Let whomseoever wishes expand as they have time. My suggesting a merge is meeting with too much confusion.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please remove your untrue claim that I said filmographies aren't allowed, since I clearly said no such thing. Also please be more clear about what exactly you feel should be merged rather than deleted. Context isn't the problem here, content is. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then your statement about filmographies "the latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia" was not clear... and implied that separate filmographies were somehow not allowed. But I am striking. Let whomsoever wishes expand at the Apink article when and how they may wish... adding content to support the group's context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stand alone list for APink filmography is needed because the list is too large to be put in Apink main article's filmography section.

@Shinyang-i: Can you please explain about this statement? "The latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia and thus I don't see a real purpose or need for this article." Can you please refer me to the policy regarding this? I saw some non kpop list of filmography like Aerosmith_videography and Lady Gaga videography so I don't see why kpop group cannot have the same list?
Can you also explain the reason why we cannot include individual member's filmography? APink members (except Eunji) don't have separate article so It only make sense to merge them to APink's filmography.
When you reviewed kpop group filmography and nominate them for deletion, what criteria do you use to decide that a standalone list of filmography needed or not? Are there any group that pass your criteria so you didn't nominate them for deletion? Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to Sonflower0210 this filmography is not meeting the standards of the Aerosmith_videography or Lady Gaga videography. For example if you read the shows listed under television for lady gaga you might notice there are no tv interviews listed, which you would think must have done some, I know for a fact she was on Ellen so why was that left out? Because it's not noteworthy. The people creating her videography only kept important appearances worthy of note like a TV special, a Saturday night live appearance, and the rest were episodes of shows she acted in. K-pop filmographies most often list every single tv appearance with no regard for what is actually relevant and very few if any references. If you want to argue all are super relevant then find the sources to back that up. As for your complaint about individual members: add it to their member blurbs if no one is willing to build them pages yet. Peachywink (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peachywink: I don't think that is a valid reason to delete the whole standalone list, According to WP:NOTESAL:

"Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.".

The article may need improvement so it can reach wiki standard. Though I have to ask what is the wiki standard for a good list? Can you give me an example of the few K-pop filmography that you said meet the standard? So it can be used as reference? About the solution for Individual member filmography, I don't really understand what you mean, can you explain what do you suggest here? Sonflower0210 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Sonflower0210 the sort of list that quoteit talking about where each item doesn't need individual notability, is stuff like a list of academy award recipients. For a videography/ filmography usually each needs to show notability. Anyways there is a huge problem with sources that prove this for kpop videographis/ filmographies which is why the editors are trying to crack down. This also means there are not many good ones to show as examples. In fact the only one I know of is the one I myself made Got7 videography, I had it approved by outside editors before it was moved out of drafts. I wrote on the talk page a lot of the questions I had for myself while makeing the page.Peachywink (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peachywink: You just created a similar videography for Got7 and get approval so I don't understand why you think Apink filmography should be deleted instead of improved? I just look at GOT7 videography, you put individual member on the list as well,why you disagree with APink members Individual activities to be included here? Not all of the content are without sources, many have inline citation to the other article so repeat citation is not needed. I'm willing to improve the article but the problem is I'm not yet sure the criteria for a good videography, everyone do it differently and just like any kpop article there are no standards here Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonflower0210 look at the bottom of the a pink filmography then look at the bottom of the got7 videography page see the difference? It's the references. The apink references aren't only missing, the youtube video one that is there links to a private video so it should be removed. As for why I have Jackson's stuff up, well that's frankly because I felt it was important information about the group since his variety talent and has gained additional recognition for the group. Also the rest of his group appears in each of these programs at some point but I don't plan to add anymore shows he will be signed up to do in the future. And yes standards are all over the place, we're trying to change that....which bring us to here now. Peachywink (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peachywink:You still haven't answer my question on why do you think Apink filmography should be deleted instead of just adding reference and improving their content? Also how this mass AfD part of setting/improving the standard. A standard need to be set and informed before/during mass Afd so other editors outside of the "exclusive group" also understand why the article need to be improve or need to be deleted. Shinyang-i as nominator didn't refer to any specific wiki policies or previous discussion that established this article not appropriate for wikipedia. That's why I was asking what kind of criteria did he use when evaluating videography article. Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to restart the indents for this. Anyways Sonflower0210, I think it should be removed because once we take out individual member activities you have 2 variety appearance and 7 reality programs left which isn't that big a list. The reality programs can be moved to the main article the variety shows will most likely be dropped unless you prove noteworthiness with sources, so that's only one maybe two categories. Since it woln't clutter the main page I don't see why it can't be added there. Also, don't look at it as a bad thing, it's just how the page is being organized. Big bang doesn't have a separate filmography/ videography either. It's basically there are two methods of organizing: one is to have a separate videography with film stuff and music videos both on it, the other is to put the music videos in the discography and move the film stuff to the main page. I feel videographies are the better route but since your article is closer to being organized the discography route it makes since to keep going that way. plus Shinyang-i didn't mention the rules broken by the article directly because the rest of us understand since we see a lot of these. More than the problem with no sources the key fault is this page is what Wikipedia is not ... i'd say number 2.10. I mean it's clear from the prose at the top someone really was just making a list for list sake because it mentions none of the groups film accomplishments up there to tell us why the list exists. with no refernces, no context, and no reason to keep it I agree it should be deleted. Anyways we are not a secret club you can come find most of the k-pop editors and our past discussions on this and many other topics here- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture :) Peachywink (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peachywink: One of the main reason I can't agree with most of kpop editor's "clean-up mission" is because the double standards used. For the same issue, on a page where they're regular contributor, they are inclusionist where on other page they're deletionist. That's the reason why I want the same standard/criteria to be applied on every article which are not the case right now.

This is why I have problem when you vote for the deletion of Apink filmography while you just created one yourselves for Got7 who have far less notability on their filmography than Apink. I'm not sure how you got only 2 variety appearance from? Did you open the table for the year 2011-2014? As I've said before, I said I will work on improving the content and reference if this page not get deleted, so I don't think this can be the reason for deletion. As per this policy WP:ATD - "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." If you use the same standards for Got7 and remove all individual and non-notable variety show, they will have less content than Apink. Moreover, if you are suggesting this page to be moved to main article, why you created a separate article for Got7 filmography instead adding them to main page as per your own suggestion? There are almost nothing on Got7 main page beside lead paragraphs and 5 sentences of content. Anyway, I'll stop challenging your opinion and will agree to disagree. Thanks you for the discussion. Sonflower0210 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonflower0210: Sorry for the late response. There have been many discussions and agreements that long lists of variety show and other such appearances are not appropriate for Wikipedia. That's for fan sites. It's been observed the absurdity of the Apink filmography being longer than the Christopher Lee filmography. Clearly something is very wrong here, namely that a mention of every single time Apink's faces show up on TV does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia!!! (Notice there are no talk show appearances on Lee's fimography.) For the record, I found about 12-15 kpop filmographies, and I nominated half of them for deletion. Later, I will nominate the other half. I didn't see a single one that wasn't about 95% variety show appearances and individual works, mostly entirely unsourced, and that includes the one for my own very favorite group (and I AFD'd it). So I'm afraid there is no "correctly done" kpop filmography to refer you to. In general, there are damn few kpop articles of any kind that are fit for emulation. One should always look at the standards and articles that have reached "Good Article" status as a model, not other articles with bad ratings. Apink members don't have their own articles because they aren't notable, which I believe has been discussed quite a lot previously (I did not take part in those discussions so don't yell at me - that's a discussion for somewhere else). Their very few individual appearances in real acting roles or regular hosting on other shows can be included in the blurbs in their articles. That's what those blurbs are there for, to talk about their individual info. You can "improve" the Apink filmography all you want, but if you do it correctly there will not be enough left to merit an article. And since you're flinging personal accusations around, I'd love for you to point out on what articles I have a double standard (on my talk page, please, don't trash up a legtimiate AFD). Shinyang-i (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonflower0210: You keep implying that all we are doing is trying to delete everything, which isn't true, and now you are saying we have double standards for pages we edit. I know that isn't true of Shinyang-i and it isn't true of myself either. As I said elsewhere, when I first started editing K-pop articles, I created some myself by copying other K-pop articles (bad idea). I've merged/redirected some of my own articles already, and at least one other one will probably be redirected soon. If you think I've been biased somewhere, tell me about it (on my talk page) rather than making vague accusations. For the record, I would also vote for deletion of the Got7 videography article because everything important could fit on the band's page (I wouldn't include guest appearances like Weekly Idol.) Random86 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it get's voted for deletion that's fine, I was thinking it might be best not to follow the western model and instead to make all k-pop articles follow the discography style. I already did my research and can move the references to the main page, but I want to keep the prose in some form... so I might be a little messy when I move it, since I'm not great at those things but I will try. It would free me up from feeling conscious about it so that I could finally nominate some more groups filmographies I've been eyeing but haven't nominated because they aren't "that bad". Peachywink (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS> Can we make this a thing? Like just say flat out that no k-pop artist get's a group filmography? I don't know of single one with enought group programs to qualify for one and it would be so much quicker if we could just tell people no they can't have it because no one can....just a thought. Peachywink (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sonflower0210:, I have already said this, but please do not try to compare and use other Kpop articles as an example. They ALL need a lot of editing.--TerryAlex (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shinyang-i and Random86:

I never mean to attacked on anyone personally. What I was trying to say is that kind of things happens because there are no certain standard to be met. All recent mass deletion left me confused, in this case for example what can be consider a good filmography article for kpop? What criteria it need to meet so it merit a standalone article? Those kind of information will benefit editors like me who wasn't involve in your prev discussion. For editor who work on the project like you guys it'll also be easier since you don't need to re-explained everything and just pointed out to the standard. I wouldn't continue this discussion here and i don't think talkpage is appropriate because it's nothing personal against one person, Peachywink refer me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture, is this page still active?
About this Apink Filmography, Can you guys give me a week to work on this article? After a week, we can review it again and if it's still not good enough, it's still not too late to delete it. I will look for good/featured filmography article for reference.Sonflower0210 (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean to attack anyone. It's appreciated! :) Feel free to work on the Apink filmography more, but neither R86 nor I have anything to do with what will follow. We're not involved in making any decisions, an admin will do that. But usually if there's a lot of discussion he/she will leave the AFD discussion open until a consensus is reached or discussion has stalled, or making some arrangement that will allow an editor to improve it in their sadnbox or something. But I think the point is there isn't enough information that belongs in a filmography to make a whole separate article, regardless of the material quality. Overall, a "filmography" is for acting roles in TV or movies, or maybe a TV host's works, or something like that, not for the non-acting TV appearances of a music group. The criteria for a filmography (or discography, videography, awards list, etc) as a standalone article is size - if its inclusion (of appropriate material only) in the main article makes that article too big (see WP:SPLIT. Prolific actors have standalone filmographies, while many actors who've worked less may have their filmographies presented as sections within their article (GA example Salman Aristo). It would be odd for a musical group to have acted, as a group, in so many roles (or even reality shows) that the list wouldn't fit in their group article. However, definitely work on it - chop out all the variety show appearances, work on getting references, ask for help, etc, and we'll see what's left and go from there. This isn't about anyone trying to win a battle against anyone else, we all (you included) just want to find the best method of presentation for appropriate material. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:15, 1 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added content into the page. Kindly review it. Thanks. Sonflower0210 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've work on the page and added information about 3 of Apink's most notable reality/variety show. I know that there are separate page for similar article like EXO's Showtime but I think combine them into their filmography are better. I think the page now have enough information and notable for a separate article. That's why I still believe the page should be Keep. Please also give any advise on how can the article be improve further. Thanks Sonflower0210 (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it looks messier now because of the additions. It's not normal to include long explantions of each program in the filmography though you can if it provides helpful info but these don't seem to shed any new insight on them other than how the programs functioned. The section on Birth of a family doesn't even mention the group or what seasons they filmed or any information about it like what dog they took care of. Also the blurbs seem to be purposfully lengthy. "Besides Apink, the show introduces key 'behind-the-scene' personalities who trained the girls for their big day. From their company's CEO to their manager, speech trainers, ballet instructors and dance choreographers." The second line isn't a proper sentence but more importantly it isn't helpful for the filmography about the girls to know this. Also it's not normal to include a table of individual episode synopsis in a filmography, and we still have lots of members individual activities listed, as well as one time appearances on variety shows. My vote remains for the page to be deleted or blanked. Peachywink (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Peachywink. It's not the norm to include that much detail on a filmography page. Filmographies are lists of TV/film roles, with a lead section summarizing them. See featured lists like Tom Cruise filmography and Julia Roberts filmography. Random86 (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Random86: I've edited the draft on my sandbox here. Let me know what you think. I'll complete the reference too. Thanks Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section is too detailed, but it's a good start. Since the music videos are already on the discography page, I would just add the list of TV shows to Apink#Filmography, along with a shortened version of the prose. I don't think their videography/filmography really needs a separate article. Random86 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it looks like a delete to me for lacking reliable sources. I ran through many of the sources on the reference list and they seem to be minor entertainment portals, and Korean Wikipedia doesn't really note these sources (other than perhaps and , that's total of two references only). - Mailer Diablo 23:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mailer Diablo:, I'm still working to complete the reference. As for the reliable source, I follow this guide for reference Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources. Hankook, Mwave, Kpop Herald, Yonhap are considered reliable source there. Can you pointed out the one that considered unreliable please? I'll fix that and I realized some of the references still refer too Naver portal instead of actual newsite and will fix that too. Thank you. Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I wanna know is why those monstrous lists of variety show appearances are still there. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i: For the variety show, are we going to exclude all of variety show guest appearance on kpop article or include the most notable one for the group? Sonflower0210 (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going, @Sonflower0210:? :) If there has been something exceptionally notable about a particular variety show appearance that received significant coverage in the media, then it should be discussed in the group's article, which is probably something that has already been done. Merely including the show in a list won't explain why it's notable, and I can't see finding an appropriate "threshold" for inclusion in a list anyway. So I'd axe all of them. Also, I still take issue with individuals' activities being listed in the group's filmography. Those are not group activities, and the only reason they are on this same page currently is because the individuals happen to be in the same music group. But those acting roles aren't related to the group at all. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonflower0210: I finally deleted the variety shows myself. They weren't going to stay, no matter the outcome of this AFD. Additionally, all those music videos belong on their discography. In fact, the discog's infobox claims the content is on that article, not this one. Move it back there where it belongs. Then all that will be left is that tiny list of Apink's own non-notable reality shows. Girls' Generation, Kara, etc - none of them have separate articles just to list their own non-notable reality shows. I think Apink can squeeze that little bitty filmography back into their group article now so we can get rid of this thing. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i: I added some of their most notable variety show appearance. I added appereances on most important/biggest S.Korean shows and when they had made multiple appearances and for some competition. For the music video, I believe it's more appropriate to put it under filmography/videography rather than discography. Since Discography is for sounds recording. I saw another page like Lady_Gaga_videography and Beyoncé videography and they both also put music video under their Videography. Also you mention about girl's generation and they also put their music video under their videography. The page have been completed with sources and all non-notable item has been removed. So I don't see the reason why the page can't be keep. Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I re-removed the variety show appearances. NO, they are still not appropriate just because you think they are "important". 1) What is your threshold for deciding which are the most notable appearances? Personal opinion. Idol Olympics?! Kill me now. 2) Other editors will re-add all their favorite shows too, and then it'll be as bad as it was before. 3) If these appearances are individually notable, as in something unusual that was extensively discussed in the mainstream media occurred on them, TALK ABOUT IT IN THEIR ARTICLE. Putting a few select shows in a list does not explain their importance and is just a crap list (as well as WP:PROMO). Again with the music videos, put them in the discography. That's where they belong, unless the discography is already too big to hold them (and it's not; the group is only a few years old, they don't need a ton of standalone articles for their stuff!!!). Regardless of what you think a discography is for, Wikipedia says it should include MVs - look at the discography infobox and many, many, many FL-status discography articles, including Girls' Generation's when it made FL status. The difference between Beyonce and Apink, again, is article size. Compare the length of Beyonce's career to Apink's, and the volume of material each has produced. Maybe Beyonce needs both a standalone discog and a standalone videog; Apink doesn't. Put the MVs in the disocgraphy where they belong and the teeny list of Apink's non-notable reality shows in a filmography section of Apink and be done with it. Not a single kpop group needs a standalone filmography, and li'l old newbies Apink sure aren't any different. They are a MUSIC GROUP, not an acting troupe or something. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i:

I didn't choose my fav show. I chose the appereance for notable show and biggest Korean show like Running Man, 2D1N, Real Men, YHY sketchbook, etc. For weekly idol and AfterSchoolClub, the format is per episode per artist. So basically if they featured, the whole episode is about them that's why I think it's notable. Idol championship because it's a competition and they win some medals for it. There are also source and coverage for all of the show. If that's not notable, then what do you consider notable korean show? I don't believe that all of variety/TV appereance are not notable since It has been covered on other non kpop article too. They didn't include all appearance but only for the biggest show. I assume those show are the biggest in Korea that's why I include them. I also don't understand why it's WP:Promo?
Also I think It's your opinion that all list and table are crap but it has been used in wiki. If something notable can be covered in article, there are no reason why it can't be put on the list/table too.
You always says that all Kpop article are bad so don't use them as reference, but when I used other article like Lady Gaga and Beyonce, you said they have to be as popular as those two if we want to use them as reference.
Recently Got7 videography has been reviewed and approved for creation. I don't see why the Got7 article are more notable than Apink, I believe Apink filmography are equally/more notable.
We assume here videography and filmography are the same. If there's a problem with the name, just change it to videography. Don't keep saying that videography are solely for movie actor because it's not true. Sonflower0210 (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shinyang-i: I understand your frustrations but please remember that Sonflower0210, is 1. here talking with us, 2. has actually done some good research for this artist to try to find sources wether or not they stay on this page, and 3. is a new editor and Wikipedia always needs editors, even if they are only focused in very specific areas. But again I know it has been several long deletion discussions for you and it can feel like you are banging your head against a wall. Anyways, as I was typeing this I saw my Got7 page got mentioned. I suspected it might, and as I have said earlier in this discussion if it comes up for deletion I will discuss it reasonably as I too am unsure if the page is necessary. At the time I made it many groups had filmographies and I was simply trying to create a page I felt was above the standard for a kpop group to have by modeling off american artist pages, and was a page that highlighted important appearances or significant group work. Peachywink (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here we go again: Peachywink I fully respect Sonflower0210 and the work he/she does on Apink articles. That's why I'm still talking to him. What I'm getting irritated with is his insistence that Apink deserves more coverage than other groups/artists, which is what it really comes down to. To Sonflower0210:

The fact is everyone will add their own favorite shows to the list and then we'll have a huge list again. Everyone has their own idea of what shows are most popular, especially people outside Korea who go by what other kpop fans like. Are these shows big in Korea? RM had ratings so low it almost got cancelled (I love RM, okay? Don't yell. And it's bounced back). Fact is, you really can't determine that. And these shows are done for all groups. People I've never even heard of - groups constantly in danger of having their wikipedia pages deleted because they're not idol groups, like Annyoungbada - are on those shows too, esp Sketchbook. If it was some kind of rarity to have a kpop group on a show like that, I could see where it'd fall under "a notable event" and it should be discussed in the group's article. If something really notable occurred on the show, then it should be discussed in prose. Just appearing, just like people appear every single week? No. Because then the list is nearly the same for every group - what's the point other than to advertise for fans?
Stop saying this is "my opinion." There's been discussion after discussion on this "list of reality show one-off appearances" issue before.
I never said Beyonce or Gaga are more popular or more notable or anything like that. I said they have a larger body of work and maybe their stuff doesn't fit in one article. Don't twist stuff to make me sound bad. And unless Beyonce or Gaga's articles are FL or Good status, they shouldn't be used for comparison because an article doesn't have to be kpop to be bad.
I don't know anything about the Got7 article and have never looked at it. Is it FL or Good status? If not, I don't care at this very moment.
I'm assuming no such thing. Even so, I'm talking about having two articles where one will do. The Apink discog is not too large to accommodate the music video list. Thus, there is no need for a standalone article, under any name, just to list their MVs.

And yes, I'm frustrated because Apink is no more special than any other group and I'm so so so frustrated at trying to make Wikipedia better when one editor's actions will wind up with all of the kpop articles being just as terrible as they were before, if he/she gets to single-handedly keep extra info on Apink all over this encyclopedia. Shinyang-i (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EXID filmography

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

This is a big list of variety and radio show appearances, which have already been established as not appropriate for Wikipedia. Article serves no other purpose. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I split this off from the main EXID article because the Filmography section was growing excessively long. I used other Kpop groups' Filmography articles as a basis for this. I was and am unaware of a policy that prohibits this. If the article is deleted, then what information in it is usable on the main article, if any? You only mention variety and radio show appearances, so could the drama, reality, and MV appearances be included in the main article? What about appearances as a regular guest, like Hani's tenure at ShimShimTapa in 2012-2013? If these are usable, then I would like to transfer them to the main article prior to deletion. ComfyKem (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions! I recommend never looking at other kpop articles for guidance, as they're usually wrong ha ha. My advice is to look at all filmography articles in general. It's not that there is a policy prohibiting this explicitly, but previous discussions on filmography sections within articles and as stand alone lists have produced consensus that huge lists of guest appearances on variety shows (or anything else, really) are indiscriminate lists, which have no encyclopedic value and which are one of the things "Wikipedia is not". I'd recommend moving the list of music videos to EXID discography. Shows on which members were regular guests or hosts could be discussed in prose in the EXID article's member section in the appropriate members' sub-sections. Same for drama/film roles. Right now (if I recall), none of the members have gained individual notability apart from EXID, so it's fine and good to have a little subsection for each member similar to that in Apink. I'd also discuss the variety shows (or just list them) in the main EXID article, as well. That's the only thing from here I'd say legitimately belongs in an EXID filmography. Does that help? :) Shinyang-i (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done much of the recommendations. Should the variety show tables just be moved to the main article, Filmography section? ComfyKem (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might have missed something, but I don't think EXID (as a group) has ever been regular guests or the main cast of a variety show, so I wouldn't move any of those tables over to the main article. Good job on the member subsections, BTW. Random86 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added group drama and reality appearances to the Filmography section of the main article. Individual regular appearances on reality, variety, and radio shows are in prose in member subsections. I'll be keeping a personal archive (not on WP) of the article and its talk page if any of the information is ever needed in the future. If there is agreement to delete, then it can go ahead. ComfyKem (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ComfyKem, I thought I would add to this just in case you'er weird like me and wanted this group to have a videography page even if it wouldn't be a giagantic list of everything they ever did. Because it's not impossible to give the group a videography (more commonly used for music artists then filmographies). The Got7 videography was created by me useing wikipedia's "article wizard" so instead of the article being created directly to Wikipedia it had to pass an approval. This meant random editors looked at the page and judged it and after some edits it was able to be get approved. It might be the only kpop videography/ filmography that has been given an article quality scale rank. While this doesn't mean the page is perfect or protects it from deletion nominations it makes it much less likely someone will do so. Peachywink (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created one of these myself when I first started editing K-pop articles, but through discussions with other editors, I've come to the conclusion that a complete list of TV appearances is overly detailed for Wikipedia and is more appropriate for a fansite. If the whole group has their own variety show or is a regular guest on a variety show, these can be mentioned on EXID or listed in a filmography section (same thing for radio shows). Since the music video appearances are for individual members, I would only mention them in prose in that member's subsection. A table isn't needed for things like that IMO. Random86 (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to EXID per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the band's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. Let whomseoever wishes expand as they have time. Suggesting a merge is pointless. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt, what are you proposing should be merged? Some of these filmography articles are very long, like Apink filmography. I believe Shinyang-i is saying complete lists of every reality show and radio show appearance is not appropriate for Wikipedia (not that separate filmography articles aren't allowed, which is obviously not the case). Just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. (This also applies to the other K-pop band filmography AfDs you commented on.) Random86 (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... just that. Merge them and give our readers context. Eventual split out can be discussed on talk pages. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's asking what you think should be merged. Not the entire thing, surely. Did you look at this article and at the EXID article? All of the keep-able information is already there... And eventual split out...what are you talking about? Split out into what? A new filmography? For what? I'm having a lot of trouble following you. You seem to be talking in generalizations and not in relation to these specific articles. Also, do you mind modifying your many comments where you said I said filmographies aren't allowed, because I never said that and I don't like erroneous information persisting on AFD discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the entire thing can be sourced to the films themselves, yes... and it could be latter split off as a SOURCED spin-off article per already existing common practices. I am however striking by merge opinion. Have fun. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the films themselves"...EXID has no films in their filmography. If you are unfamiliar with the particular problems editors face in kpop filmographies where fans will list the even the five seconds a group member appeared during a half hour broadcast that's fine. But you should at least look at the article before you say wether it should be deleted or saved or other. Also...."it could be latter split off" was that a joke or accident or do you not know you should have used the word later?... because if you don't know what the word latter is it would explain some of today's misunderstandings.Peachywink (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm voting for deletion because there is no value in leaving up the foundation of this page when they are far off from needing it. Most of the things are small guesting on variety shows and the YouTube reality seasons can be mentioned on the main page. Individuals in the group that are cast members of shows can have that placed on their own page.Peachywink (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking WP:RS, and from the looks of it, many of the material might not be sufficiently notable for inclusion. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 11 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. As it is now past 7 April and no significant sources have been added, this article is Deleted. Nakon 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The London Session (Umphrey's McGee album)

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

A yet-to-be released album which does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. I've tried to find a way to fix the article per WP:BEFORE. I've posted on WT:ALBUM#The London Session about it as well as on the article's talk page, but still have not been able to get very far. Album is discussed here in Rolling Stone but ~~the coverage seems somewhat promotional to me. Moreover,~~that is only a single article and "WP:NALBUMS" says that albums are to be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." (Added emphasis is mine). This simply appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC); Edited to strike out subjective opinion of Rolling Stone article - 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 16 March 20 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. SilentDan (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:TOOSOON. Imo the article title is too generic to be a suitable for a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With the album coming out in a few weeks, being from a band that has 8 prior notable albums, and there already being a large article about it from such a big name, mainstream source like Rolling Stone, deleting this seems like an exercise in time-wasting. The Rolling Stone source is a very detailed article, and considered a reliable, usuable source per WP:ALBUMS/REVSIT - to brush it off merely as just some "promotional" article is not accurate. Sources like this are going to keep popping up, not to mention advance release reviews. If it doesn't have enough coverage yet, it probably will be the time this discussion closes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that RS is a mainstream reliable source. My "seems somewhat promotional to me" comment was in reference to tone of that particular article (at least my perception of it) and not the reliability of the magazine itself. That is, however, my interpretation of the article which may or may not be relevant in this particular case. Therefore, I have stricken out the comment to avoid any further problems. My understanding of notability is that it is something established through sources which already exist, not sources which may someday exist. This debate is not about the possible "future" notability of this album; It's about it's notability right now. If we allow such a rationale to be used in this particular case, then the same could be essentially argued for any article deleted for reasons of notability. That is something which really seems contrary to the spirit of "WP:TOOSOON". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was me that described that Rolling Stone article as a "puff piece", actually. I take Sergecross73's point that there's a likelihood that this album will become suitably notable for inclusion. At the same time, I'm concerned about the apparent conflict of interest that's seen a previously unregistered editor push so hard to retain the article. Not only that, but I've had cause to doubt the quality/notability of two other articles relating to Umphrey's McGee, including one of those previous eight albums: Similar Skin. There, after close to a year, we have one source that's a specialist music publication, The Aquarian Weekly; the rest are clips from the band's YouTube channel. It's easy to think the foot's in the door, so to speak, thanks to previous articles on the encyclopaedia – and I'm suspicious. If in two or three weeks' time, we find other quality sources come to light, then fine. But I really can't see why this article should be kept until then. It doesn't meet notability requirements currently, and Wikipedia has just been serving as a promotional platform for the upcoming release over the past few weeks and continues to do so. That can't be right. JG66 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I certainly agree that articles shouldn't be used strictly for promotional purposes. But that's a rationale for cleanup, not deletion. Also, 5 seconds of searching lead to finding 5 sources dedicated to Similar Skin. It's a notable album, it just needs clean up as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Thanks for the finding another source for Similar Skin. If it hasn't already been added to the article, I'll see if I can figure a way to make it work. If you find any sources which help establish the notability of The London Sesssion, please add them to the article. This debate is about an album's notability or lack thereof, not it's tone. I'm not sure if it's possible for us to establish notability by simply cleaning up the wording. If that can be done, then I'm all for it. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only brought up tone because JG mentioned it as a reason to delete above, which is faulty - it's not like I used it as a reason keep. I'll concede that I'm having a hard time finding sources, it's just that, as I said above, it's so close to release, that it's going to have the necessary coverage. It'd be different if you nominated this last January, but it's so close to release. If you're interested in wasting time and effort, sure go and delete, but artists that get long articles dedicated to them by high profile sources like Billboard don't have main studio albums that fly under the radar. Deletion is choosing the beaurocratic route, not the practical route. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with Similar Skin, I concede I didn't bother to search for more sources at all. (Brendan Bayliss was the other article I tagged, btw.) Thanks to Sergecross73 for spending the requisite 5 seconds(!) – those American Songwriter, PopMatters, Rolling Stone reviews via Metacritic obviously quell any concerns I'd had about Similar Skin. As for The London Session, I'm all for avoiding the bureaucratic route, on Wikipedia as in real life. Right or wrong, though, I still hold on to the principle that the article appears to have been used as a promotional platform all this time; and whether there's just 2 or 3 weeks until its release (accompanied by reviews and further media coverage, no doubt), it's still 2 or 3 weeks more that the article, in its current state, doesn't belong. I admit that seeing now how Similar Skin did not in fact go unnoticed, I do it as inevitable that The London Session will become notable enough for inclusion. JG66 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 19 March 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 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Sergecross73. With the sources available now and with how close it is to release, it would be a waste of time to delete this now, only to re-create the article a week or two later. Not to mention, per WP:NALBUMS, the title, track list and release date have all been announced. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band's four most recent studio albums have charted and have received critical attention from multiple reliable sources; I expect that, upon this album's release in two weeks, similar coverage will emerge to warrant a standalone article. With this in mind, I see no harm in a redirect to the band's page, and little to be gained by outright deletion. Gongshow talk 01:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found this WXRT radio interview with the band explaining their experience of recording this album at the Abbey Road studio. For me, this, the Rolling Stones review, and the fact the band is fairly established pushes me into keep territory even if the album is not yet released. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé (Belgian singer)

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

Stub article for three years with no clear or established notability, all references are now dead links Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the onus is on the nominator to make some effort to search in Flemish sources. Yes sources suffer for link rot, that would be the case on just about every article in Wikipedia, which is why we try to hardwire them, not just delete articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not normally one to jump up and shout "delete" on Eurovision related articles. However, as this singer did not get to represent Belgium at either Junior Eurovision 2008 or Eurovision 2011, then there is nowhere else to really merge it into. And no offence to In ictu oculi, but the onus is not on the nominator at all. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so really the entire Wikipedia community, including yourself, is at onus to improve the articles, as long as all the general notability guidelines are met. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (article creator) the article needs improvements. But that is no reason for deletion. Clearly notable per Eurovision performances and media attention. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you improved it? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: Have you heard of life beyond the Wikipedia world? Perhaps that why the improvements have taken so long to be done. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 08:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse:, gosh, I'll be the first to admit that real life takes priority over WP, but in three years you'd think if the Notability was there someone would have taken it beyond stub status. I like the Eurovision contest as much as anyone, but is this person Notable just because of that? I don't know, so I'm asking. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Those sources need to be replaced with archived versions, Also found these [88][89][90][91][92][93] (I can't read ~~Belgian~~ French/German/Dutch so I'm not sure if these are even related .....). –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed as I don't think this is helping either of us. –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such language as "Belgian". LibStar (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you replied just to tell me that ? .... Your reply's so fucking helpful! ...... Whatever the fucking language is I clearly don't speak it. –Davey2010^Talk 03:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please be civil. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be a WP:DICK - You could've said "Dave, Belgian isn't a language but "so and so" is" as opposed to your above message which wasn't helpful in the slightest. –Davey2010^Talk 06:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out a clear fact that Belgian is not a language. how is using the f word civil? LibStar (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we're having such a hard time finding any English language sources to cite about this subject, doesn't that make it hard to defend its inclusion in the English language Wiki? Does this person have articles in the French, Deutsch, or Nederlands Wikis?--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What French, Deutcsch or other Wikipedias includes is not relevant to English Wikipedia. Therefor not a reason for deletion or otherwise.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's quite a salient point. If the Wikis for her native language (whichever it is) do not find her notable enough to include, then why is it on the English WP when we can't find any English language sources to support it? Why didn't you address this when you created the article? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete junior Eurovision isn't good enough for notability and most of the coverage confirms her participation. she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Scalhotrod makes the good point of no article for her in the languages of Belgium. English coverage is sorely lacking which makes the case for an English language article weak. LibStar (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to have actual notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 1 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Davey2010. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Someone needs to add the new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Remove vote by indef blocked User[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:BASIC: enough coverage by reliable sources to merit an article. Esquivalience ^t 00:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What sources? We can't find any in English and there's no consensus if the non-English ones are enough to establish Notability. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly, no consensus. So no delete, and more time to find additional sources. This article subject has notability. And those !voting Delete has given no rationale beyond "IDONTLIKEIT". --BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links and none in English - my rationale
singer did not get to represent Belgium at either Junior Eurovision 2008 or Eurovision 2011 - Wesley Mouse's rationale
she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO - LibStar's rationale
only Joseph2302 was non-specific in their reasoning.

How is this "IDONTLIKEIT"? By the way, as the article creator, you have yet to make a single edit to the article since the AfD started. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Based on the balance of policy-based arguments. The lack of reliable independent sources was not addressed by any of the Keep !votes, the majority of whose arguments amount to WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:USEFUL. It should be noted that WP:BAND is meerely a guideline as to which bands are likely to fulfill the foundational criteria for inclusion, which are based on WP:V and WP:NPOV, and which lead directly to the general notability guideline. The wording of subject specific guidelines like WP:BAND is, regrettably, inclined to lead people to believe that x mentions in sources they consider reliable is an automatic entitlement to an article, which is not the case. The lack of policy-compliant sourcing is well documented below. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dethcentrik

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Dethcentrik have not charted, not recelieved any major award, lacks significant sales (gold). Albums are not release by an "important indie label". They have not been on national rotation or the subject of any substantial broadcasts. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. They lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Article suffers from a major bombardment of sources but most are simply bad sources. There is only a few worth looking at

Metal Storm. The best of a bad lot but they are indiscrimiate. Send them your metal cd and they will review it.

Terrorizer and Decompression. Inclusion on a cover cd is not significant coverage.

Campos, Cristian (2011). Metal & Hardcore Graphics: Extreme Art from the Underworld. This is an art book that lacks any depth of coverage about Dethcentrik. Loft Publications specialise in house and gardens.

This is a bloated advert for a largely ignored vanity project. It's repeated reconstruction and maintenance on Wikipedia has been a massive exercise in bad faithed editing by a mostly single purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest. AfDs have repeatedly been !vote stacked by sock\meat puppets. A vexatious SPI was created. Article has repeatedly been bombarded with misrepresented unusable sources (eg [94] 16, 18-29 are not playlists featuring Dethcentrik). BLP violations have been inserted to make the band look more controversial. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing and get rid of this tripe. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to Cry BLP over a non-biographical article.-BusyWikipedian (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article in question is of no importance whatsoever, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: I'm afraid I must agree with nearly every one of the multivarious reasons stated above, but most importantly this article doesn't establish Wikipedia:Notability, which is the preiminent guideline for considering whether or not the article should be included in Wikipedia, or immediately deleted. WP:BAND applies specifically to this article, but it has no special magical phraseaology which will surprise anyone. Wikipedia is not Myspace. The band has not made any significant impact on the world and despite the incredible effort put in to stacking sources, a close look should be taken at the citations before any judgement is made. It is clear that the subject has not actually been the subject of repeated independent coverage in reliable third-party reporting. Much of the sources cited offer completely trivial mention of the group, or include little more than a track listing. Most are not edited, many are instead user-submitted and therefore are not reliable. Some of the copious links in citations lead to no mention of the subject at all, such as the one labeled '"Dethcentrik Songs". Billboard.' It is too bad that we keep having to revisit this. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 13:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No significant coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:BAND. Jbh (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In regards to Terrorizer and Decompression, read the cited pages, it's not just inclusion on a compilation. Both users wanting deletion are failing to mention multiple sources, including these and other reviews: http://www.rockfreaks.net/albums/4612; http://ventsmagazine.com/the-fourth-reich-by-dethcentrik/; http://www.side-line.com/reviews_comments.php?id=49349_0_17_0_C; http://oliverarditi.com/2013/09/04/various-artists-album-roundup-024/ Also "Send them your metal cd and they will review it." Even if that's so, it has no affect on an artist's notability, see WP:MUSIC. As far as heavy metal and industrial are concerned, much coverage is online. In fact, many of industrial's most important artists are covered online most if not all of the time, and many of the genre's most popular publications are exclusively online. Not to mention, this band has released through the IODA. Closing administrator, please be on the lookout for (intentional?) omission of facts and blind agreement in deletion arguments--BusyWikipedian (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IODA was basically self-publishing, that is irrelevant to the discussion. The blogs you mention aren't reliable sources. That they are published online is not a problem at all. The reason for these standards is for the sake of verifiabilty. Anyone can pubish a blog with any number of unverifiable claims. Hiddencodes.com gets over 3 million hits a month. They claim that Obama is actually a reptile. I invite anyone not familiar already to look at the totality and use some common sense, you might also ask yourself if sources like the side-line review are really reliable sources when they don't list an author and offer no information about themselves on the website. oliverarditi.com , could not more clearly be a personal blog. Also I'll remind you that "Intentional? omission" is pretty close to an accusation. It isn't really one, but try to stay on the right side of WP:AGF. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 15:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that same logic, every online publication is as reliable as Hiddencodes.com. You're implying every online publication is a blog, and every blog is unreliable. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGC is useful here, "... self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Furthermore, opinion peices, such as reviews are not generally acceptable as sources for facts, though that's how they are used in the article. Just read WP:Identifying reliable sources and you should then understand why none of those sources work to establish the notability of the subject. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, that still avoids admitting that there's coverage in Decompression and Terrorizer-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::::I have no way to verify if the subject was ever even mentioned in the magazines you cite, much less that there was lengthy, in-depth coverage. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Inclusion in a free promo compilation cd and a line in the accompanying track list in the magazine does not come close to qualifying as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I was reading this discussion and felt compelled to add my two thoughts, partly because I'd never read a debate on deleting articles before. Though, this reads more like a battle of wits, law a court case, then a real debate of Dethcentrink. It seems to me that while some of the links for Dethcentrik might be lists or mentions in compilations, one must also remember that not every band gets on compilations, nor repeated compilations, particularly with a reputation and musical style as extreme as Dethcentrik. For those of you who may have curiously youtube'd the group you may agree Dethcentrik is on the far fringe of industrial and for many reviews, if you actually clicked on the sources cited, the unlistenable end of industrial. It's more likely than not, from my ear's opinion, that a band like this wouldn't get on a compilation, let alone wouldn't get any mentions anywhere but be quickly forgotten. A band like this should vanish after a short while, but Dethcentrik seems to be outlasting expectations and continuing to produce music. And, not just is Dethcentrik moving forward but also getting attention from respected folks in the industry like Chris Vrenna, whose resume includes Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails. I doubt Vrenna is going to remix music for a band nobody cares about and has no musical value. This all says up-and-coming to my ears and thus not a reason for deletion, other than the fact that the band hasn't had a hit or gotten reviewed in a certain magazine. For the record, Rolling Stone is no longer considered the de facto source of great music reviews, making or breaking artists. While, the debate over blogs that review everything and anything seems to be ignoring the fact that a few of the blogs cited do not review everything but are selective, but somehow everyone is ignoring these because the idea was put out all the citations are either just lists or review everything. I guess nobody is actually clicking through all the links to verify this accusation. It would be one thing if Dethcentrik had a handful of links and those were a few years old, but there seems to be a growing list of links from an active band that is expanding its horizons. If Dethcentrik is deleted now, at one point could it come back to wikipedia? When it gets reviewed by a certain magazine, though its likely that will never happen. When it has a hit on the radio? Which will be never. When it doubles the number of compilations and citations and reviews. But, according to some folks here that doesn't mean anything. Though, one need only look at other pages on wiki to see bands with a lot less reviews and links and the lack of debate there. It's more the fact that Dethcentrik is fringe, out of the box, that the group doesn't seem welcomed here. I think it's also interesting to note that while this band has been up for deletion previously, there certainly must be a reason it didn't get deleted. There obviously is value in listing this band. Okay, that's my two thoughts times a large multiple. Good luck to whoever needs it. I won't be checking back on this so if you're up to argue with me or point out my personal faults or biases or lack of credentials (I'm a published history author in print), find me on another forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3F00:AB1:6025:83C7:F62D:8ED0 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Unfortunately none of what you bring up adresses the dramatic failure of the article to meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. It is indeed impressive just how much effort was put into making links to put on this article as source citations, but none of them are reliable sources and the unverifiable claims made don't establish notability. The boldest claim to notability in the article appears to be that the band had a video removed from YouTube once. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: duffbeerforme and Metal.lunchbox are always involved in the same debates from my experience and duffbeerforme frequently will canvass User:Metal.lunchbox to agree and add a deletion argument. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal for editors involved on the articles concerned to be involved in the deletion discussion. Letting me know about the discussion is not WP:Canvassing. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only editing involving this article either of you have is attempting to delete it, and if duffbeerforme was concerned about a fair debate, he would have posted to other editors of this page, not just you and I-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not matter to me. This article was on my list of things to consider for AfD and I know neither of those users. As for sources, please read WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source. Also please read WP:BAND for the type of coverage needed to be considered notable. This band does not meet those criteria. Can you show that they do? Jbh (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND says inclusion is a notable compilation, so inclusion of compilations from Decompression and Terrorizer, and inclusion in Electronic Saviors should be more than enough to satisfy criteria 10. Being written about in the publications Side-Line, Vents, Terrorizer, Decompression, and Brutal Resonance (amongst others) satisfies criteria 1. Angelspit, Dawn of Ashes, and Chris Vrenna's work for the band fit under criteria 6. And they meet criteria 7, they are the by far the most notable representatives of industrial from Colorado Springs, and are accepted in the international industrial scene. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for reliable sources; Brutal Resonance, Decompression, Metal Storm, Side-Line, Vents, Terrorizer, and The Gauntlet (to name a few, again) are perfectly reliable sources, and are very authoritative within their subcultures -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelspit, Dawn of Ashes, and Chris Vrenna aren't even mentioned in the article. Also your "work for" wouldn't match criterion 6 even if they were, since that clearly states that a band may be considered notable if it includes two or more notable musicians as members. Deth Centrik most certainly does not. The rest, we've already discussed. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl from Angelspit and Kristof from Dawn Of Ashes are on a Dethcentrik album, and Chris Vrenna helped with production for a compilation track. The rest has not been discussed. You simply avoid and dismiss anything that goes against your argument. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address the spurious accusations made by BusyWikipedian. "duffbeerforme and Metal.lunchbox are always involved in the same debates from my experience". That is because BusyWikipedian's experience is EXTREMELY limited. He is primarily focused on the promotion of Dud Beverte and his various projects. The crossover between Metal Lunchbox at afd is limited to two articles. In addition to this afd there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Død Beverte, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (3rd nomination). All fit in Busy's laser focus. The crossover between Metal.lunchbox and BusyWikipedian is exactly the same. Does that mean they are also colluding? The crossover between BusyWikipedian and myself is bigger, adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 3: Remission (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elctrikchair (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elctrikchair (3rd nomination) to the list. Does that suggest a conspiracy between me and him? He also says I "frequently will canvass User:Metal.lunchbox" BusyWikipedian clearly has not reas WP:CANVAS. Not only is it not canvasing, it misrepresents my notifications. I have informed BusyWikipedian about more AfDs than Metal.Lunchbox. "if duffbeerforme was concerned about a fair debate, he would have posted to other editors of this page". What other editors. Other than passing and technical edits, there is no one else that has made any significant edits. This is a vanity page. These accusations are clearly baseless and are just trying to distract from the lack of notability of the subject at hand. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @BusyWikipedian: please stop marking all of your edits here minor. Only edits which result in no substantial change in a page should be marked minor. Marking other edits as minor can be considered disruption. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have trimmed some of the most unreliable sources and unverifiable claims from the article. It should be a little easier to judge the notability and the potential verifiability of the article now with out all the wikipuffery. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found Wikipedia to be useful resource for finding out more about bands I find out about, and I've read about this band in many of the online magazines I frequent (Side-Line, Vents, and Brutal Resonance namely, although reviews never affect my opinion of a band, I tend to look up bands I read about to hear them, or decide if I like them when I hear them). After hearing about them constantly around here, and on an online radio show recently, I decided to finally look more into this band, and I've got to say, this has to be one of the best resources to learn about them on. I understand the concerns about whether or not this band is worthy of keeping here since Wikipedia does have standards, but in terms of Colorado's industrial music scene, they're extremely important. They're one of the best known bands around here, and I do know they've gained recognition from places that usually only acknowledge the bigger bands in the genre period. They aren't mainstream, but they're an important part of the fabric of modern industrial music, and the coverage they get is with the biggest of the big in terms of the genre. I did see a book mentioned in this discussion, and I'm wondering why that's not still on the list of resources, because that's big. There's a copy of that book at a college library in town, and the bands I saw in that book were huge Slayer, Dimmu Borgir, Korn, etc. There are many articles about this band in big publications, so I don't see how one can't find the articles themselves and see that this band is noteworthy within the genre's scene, and I don't want to see this article go away as I've noticed a few others, of perfectly notable bands and albums have. People here need to understand that to fans of industrial, this is one of the biggest artists right now, and there are many other artists, albums, and people in the scene who aren't here but should be -128.198.17.62 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This anonymous sockpuppet/meatpuppet asserts that they are "one of the biggest artists right now", that's bold. WP:AGF exists, but we aren't supposed to pretend to be idiots. Said "book" has no significant coverage of the subject of the article, just an album cover. The "magazines" mentioned are even less significant. Vents isn't the vents magazine you get when you google "Vents Magazine" but rather a non-notable podcast that may or may not even mention the band. I didn't feel like listening to the whole thing to find out. The article doesn't cite the other two, because they are not reliable sources, not by a long shot. Other than that the above sockpuppet/meatpuppet only cites his/her personal opinion. This is another pitiful attempt to cover up for utter lack of notability. I hope that the proper admin will not take anything for granted in his/her appraisal of this discussion and the relevant article. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have taken the time to properly word what I wanted to say, but I don't appreciate being called an idiot over that. This from what I see is a debate, and anyone is supposedly welcome to chime in, and from what I see here this debate has to do with opinions and whether or not the band has enough press to stay. I mentioned the magazines I did because they have written about the band. Vents has a review of the band (http://ventsmagazine.com/the-fourth-reich-by-dethcentrik/) and an interview (http://ventsmagazine.com/dod-beverte/) with the frontman (albeit, it's about all of his projects). That's two articles, and it is the site you find when you Google "Vents magazine." I haven't heard the podcast myself, so I don't know if they played a track by the band or actually talked about them. I figured it would be valuable to mention myself that this band is widely accepted as an important group in industrial music. I found this a useful resource to find more about this band, and they're important enough that the article needs to stay, and they aren't unknown. I certainly won't bother doing one of these again if it just gets you insulted by the opposing side of the argument128.198.17.62 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

128.198.17.62, it's nice of you to join this debate, and while I do agree with your points about where you've read about Dethcentrik being notable, you also bring up other points that we'd have to take your word on and it is your first time here. Metal lunchbox did not call you an idiot by the way, he just didn't think you had a very compelling argument and that it was suspicious that you don't have a history here at Wikipedia. Perhaps it's your first time seeing an article with an open deletion discussion, maybe you've seen articles disappear and now you know how it happens; maybe you have seen these debates before and thought you could finally chip in. Perhaps you should wait before joining one of these again. I see you mention a college library, if you're in college that means at some point you've likely had to use citations, and if you have then you know how Wikipedia works to an extent: we write articles with information that can be verified through sources. Those sources have to be reliable, just as they would in your papers. I've had to write papers, and I was told never to use Wikipedia as a resource. Ideally, we don't want Wikipedia to be that unreliable. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was mistaken, the Vents citation was from the vents magazine that you get when you google it. There were so many unreliable citations that it's hard to remember all of them exactly. The Vents citations you provide were removed from the article (by me) because they aren't reliable sources, just like all the sources used in the article. A review, is an opinion piece, and generally can't be used to verify facts here on wikipedia. The second source is an interview with the subject of the article, so it's just what he says about himself, so cannot be used to verify claims either. This entire debate would not be necessary if someone would just read WP:RS for once. I'll repeat what another editor has said to you in the past, your idea of what constitutes a reliable third-party source and significant coverage are not compatible with the consensus here at wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 10:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the page is kept or no consensus is reached no action is needed, but if the article is deleted go ahead and delete The Fourth Reich under A9 criteria and close the AfD debate.--BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - — BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. } Jbh (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, please see my contibutions before simply agreeing with this. I do agree I haven't edited much outside the topic of music, but I don't feel that was the implication-BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusyWikipedian: Sorry, when I looked at your contributions all I saw were edits related to Død Beverte who is a member of Dethcentrik and Død Incarnate Records including the Deathcentric albums which are not even remotly near passing WP:NALBUM. I should have looked deeper. Striking SPA and will do so at the other AfDs related to Deathcentric. Jbh (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - — 128.198.17.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jbh (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The album articles for this band have all been placed at AfD. Jbh (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there is a lot of conversation and not a lot of policy citations here let me address how Deathcentrik stacks up against the criteria of WP:BAND.

Not the subject of multiple non-trivial works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
Not had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
Not had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
Not received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country
Not as released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.
Not contain two or more independently notable musicians...
Not become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.
Not won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Not won or placed in a major music competition.
Not performed music for a work of media that is notable
Not been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
Not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

If it can be shown how this band meets any of the above criteria I will happily change my vote to keep. Jbh (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I previously responded to you about these concerns earlier in the debate -BusyWikipedian (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where you did. To try to make a concise area of discussion without all of the noise in the rest of this page please say what criteria it is you believe this band passes and how they pass it. It will aid in my understanding quite a bit. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest I was just feeling lazy and was hoping you had the energy to read through some of the malarkey to find it. This AfD has been going forever. Anyway, the cited album reviews are from notable sources: Side-Line, Brutal Resonance, Rockfreaks, Metal Storm (which, as a user pointed out recently is listed as a reliable source in WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES), and articles from Vents magazine and The Gauntlet (which, I do recall seeing articles from on Google news). They have been in numerous compilations (which criteria 10 counts) including a compilation of exclusive tracks released by Metropolis Records and two in printed, ISSN assigned magazines, amongst others. Criteria 6, when you factor in the musical genre, is met by the fact that Dawn Of Ashes, Angelspit, and Chris Vrenna have contributed to Dethcentrik. And they are the most prominent industrial band from Colorado Springs. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the sources you mentioned only one is RS per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. I see nothing that indicates they are the most prominent industrial band in Colorado Springs they may well be the only one from Colorado Springs but that does not count. Criteria 6 is notable members not people who have played with them but actual members. The only way I see them passing is if they have songs on notable compilations ie ones that have or could have their own article. Are they on such a compilation? If so, which one? I know industrial is hard to find sources for. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GNG an article can in fact be cited for a Wikipedia article that isn't about the main topic of that article. Terrorizer and Decompression talk about the band (read the write ups), and WP:RS says that a source doesn't have to be listed specifically to be reliable, and you shouldn't always have to check Wikipedia and find that other sources are considered reliable. There also is not a minimum number of sources, and if a band is the only band in their genre in their city, they are still the most famous band in that genre from their city, they are still the most notable from that city. If you consider Terrorizer's sales alone, you realize that it's not only a notable compilation, but the write up constitutes coverage in a reliable source, Decompression would count for both as well. If you consider the compilation Electronic Saviors and its importance in the modern industrial music scene, it's definitely a notable compilation series. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is getting pretty loose on notability in my opinion. Yes you can cite sources in an article that are not specificly about the subject but they do not count for notability purposes. For the most part those are considered 'passing mention'. I can think of several 'most notable' bands if you define geography and genre narrowly enough. While there is no numeric minimum significant means more than one or two sources. My firm opinion is if you have to reach for notability then they are not notable. Based on the album closes maybe the community has a different view of this than I do. I consider significant coverage to be at least as high a bar as national charting, the types of awards given as examples etc. it is not a low bar. My bet is this closes NO CONSENSUS most AfDs with this much text do. Jbh (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "write-up" is more like a mention. The song is included in the terrorizer promo cd that they bundle with one of their issues, and they have a kind of track listing on page 3 with a few words about the band. This is not in-depth coverage. And the promo compilation cd bundled with that particular issue isn't notable. It was never mentioned in any books, no one wrote a newspaper article about it and it has no significant impact on the world. Your idea of notability and reliable sources are both radically deviant from Wikipedia norms. RE: no consensus- That the author of the article objects to the deletion based on exaggerated claims is not a proper basis for "no consensus". Consensus is not unanimity - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PR and promotional material is specifically excluded from coverage counting towards notability. Jbh (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider "a few words" an underexaggeration. And if charting and awards is all that counted, there would be too many omitted notable artists, including Throbbing Gristle, Coil, and Psychic TV, three of the most important industrial bands. And yes, WP:GNG specifically states that articles in which the topic of the Wikipedia article are not the main subject of the article do count towards notability. And what makes a source reliable should be the criteria for a reliable source, not whether it has an article on Wikipedia or whether it is listed as a reliable source, the list itself even says that, and most sources dismissed in this debate meet WP:RS, but are being dismissed solely on the fact that they aren't on Wikipedia as an article or on the list. Third party sources with editorial oversight are being dismissed here without research, because they aren't all over Wikipedia. And the assertion that "that particular issue" of Terrorizer is not notable; Why only that issue? Because it includes Dethcentrik?-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are twisting my words, it is the promo cd included in that particular issue that I claim is not particularly notable, based on the criteria set forth in WP:NALBUMS and other descriptions of what is generally considered "notable" on wikipedia. It is actually a few words, not paragraphs, that is not just my personal opinion. The coverage is not in-depth. Read WP:RS for god's sake! We aren't claiming that it has to be specifically listed as a reliable source by name on wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbh, Metal.lunchbox, I have seen no reliable evidence (or any evidence for that matter) that Terrorizer's compilation series is a "promo cd." If that were considered a valid point, then all of Wikipedia would be based on anything a user decided to say -BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusyWikipedian: It looks to be a CD put out by a magazine to promote or showcase artists. It is not sold as an independent release but as part of buying the magazine. That is the very definition of promotional material. Jbh (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The results of two of the AfDs for Dethcentrik albums closed with a Keep. One Dethcentrik album related AfD remains --BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case this is unclear, decisions to delete or not delete articles related to this one, should not have any significant impact on the decision to delete this article. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We do not relist AFDs three times (User:The Herald), so I'm closing this now with the finding that no consensus was reached in over 21 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Center (disambiguation)

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

There's only one and a half good entries, and that's already covered by an existing hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With both a book and astronomical features, there's sufficient dispersal of topics to support a disambiguation page. (There's probably a Star Wars article or two that could be added to the list without too much digging.) Pax 08:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dab page doesn't include examples. That's why Planet (disambiguation) doesn't list Earth. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Bulge (astronomy) and Supermassive black hole. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this is kept, perhaps add UCLA The Galactic Center Group and 9d galactic center. JT_dale^Talk~ 07:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 09:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar bowl (A Series of Unfortunate Events)

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

The article is pure fancruft. The topic is not notable and anything important mentioned in the article can (or already is) mentioned on other pages relevant to the series (e.g. A Series of Unfortunate Events, The Slippery Slope). The article is not referenced (other than The End, which isn't an appropriate primary source for any information in the article) and large portions are original research, such as claims that the sugar bowl is a MacGuffin, that it "could ... contain something of great power, perhaps even greater than the Medusoid Mycelium" and the notion that "it is (probably) indirectly mentioned in The Ersatz Elevator by Esmé." — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing little reliable secondary sourcing for the sugar bowl itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4058 Cecilgreen

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Not worth merging either, though a reidrect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000 would be fine. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep (redirect to list) per extensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST about these things, they get redirected, not deleted -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO. I could only find a small reference in Carbo et al (2009). Praemonitus (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Should the subject meet WP:NFOOTBALL in the near future, please ping me and I can provide a copy of the article. Nakon 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Brannagan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that he Has not made an appearance a fully professional league yet. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't understand the claim re "fully professional league". Surely his appearance, albeit as a sub, against Oldham would count? If it doesn't, surely this would have to be because "subs aren't notable", which isn't how I read the team sports practice so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that to qualify under that guideline a footballer must have actually appeared in a match. Simply being named to the bench is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if the UK guideline is specific on that.

I still wouldn't delete it (maybe userfy it). I suspect it'll be coming back very soon and there's no point in sheer make-work. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dammartin-en-Goële hostage crisis

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

Queried speedy delete request. This was a spectacularly major event. OK, the text looks like direct autotranslater output that needs tidying. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a very unnecessary page, and I don't see anything in this article that is already mentioned in the Charlie Hebdo shooting article. There is just a lot of unnecessary bulk that was put in to make sure it seems necessary. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above discussion. Plus, there has been no more attempts to clean up the page. A deletion is necessary. CitiV (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comparison of video codecs. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video encoders

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

This list is a poor content fork of Comparison of video converters with only three items, two of which don't belong in it! Codename Lisa (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no sense, and at least HandBrake is covered by Comparison of video converters. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of video codecs, the more comprehensive article. (This article simply lists a few apps which include one or more codecs). Pax 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The name is certainly suitable but the contents are like apples and lizards. "Redirect" here would mean "delete and make a redirect". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the name is poor, because "encoder" (as opposed to codec) does not refer to a standard with known parameters; instead it refers to products. So, not only will there eventually be inevitable promotional issues if kept, but the article will suffer from constant obsolescence as products go through upgrades. Many of the products also contain more than one codec, making comparisons even more difficult. Given that virtually all present encoders are simply GUI shells running codec command-line scripts under the hood, codec comparison is just going to be the more useful article now and in the foreseeable future. Pax 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... in the interest of remaining on topic, I just say that I have no problem with leaving a redirect after deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect , to the Comparison of video codecs would be fine. Since It already includes all these Codecs list, their company and some apps being listed in this article. --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This article on "encoders" is redundant. There are software applications to handle video and there are codecs that those programs use to handle specific file formats, we already have articles for those two topics. Comparison of video codecs is the more appropriate redirect target. Alsee (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of video codecs - as above, this article is redundant and less complete.Dialectric (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension 8

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

Album that has been marked for notability since 2009 that apparently was never released public (redirect be the best) Wgolf (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I googled to see if I could find any 3rd party reviews of the work and I could not ( in the first 3 pages of Google at least I'm not omnipotent by any means) I think if we do a discography we can have all the tracks of all the albums on a single table instead of every album having an article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any independent source to judge notability and coverage. Google results fail to show any of them except their own website/blog. --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 08:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 18:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justincase (album)

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

~~Unotable album that has been long discussed as a merge it seems since 2012 (gee really that long?) Wgolf (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment. No, it hasn't been discussed as a merge because someone just slapped a mergeto tag on it and didn't bother to start a merge discussion. You say it isn't notable (I presume that's what you mean by 'unotable') but what have you done to check whether any notability exists? --Michig (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did you for instance do a Google search and find this article from Billboard, this review from CMJ New Music Report, and this Allmusic review? Whether or not you found these, or looked even, why did you not consider merging it rather than bringing it to AfD to get it deleted given that a merge was (half-)proposed and hasn't been opposed? --Michig (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-it says on the top it has been discussed as a merge since 2012, so I figured I mention something. Wgolf (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The band clears notability so their albums should clear notability as well, but the length of both articles is small enough that merging them together is easily accomplished. I don't see a need for a delete but a proper merger discussion and proposal should happen since I think that would be the best solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Justincase. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the review sources brought up by Michig. Both the album article and band article may be small, but that doesn't mean they can't be expanded. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources above demonstrate that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Billboard, CMJ, and Allmusic pieces contain enough material to suggest potential for a sourced standalone article. I'm not opposed to a merge, either. Gongshow talk 08:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing identified above as well as the following: [95] [96] Everymorning talk 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-I do find it odd it says merge to on top so I was not sure what to say. Anyway withdrawing. Wgolf (talk) 18:05, 11 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! 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Recordings

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

WP:NN company who mostly self-published music created by its owners. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Findsources turns up very little except shop sites and a few sites who have republished this article. The Dissident Aggressor 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article about founder of the label also being considered for deletion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think it's great they're doing work in self-published music, but I think it falls short on notability when half the links in the introduction paragraph are red. If some of the bands were notable enough to have articles maybe we'd get to a point where the publisher is. but With no bands or albums hitting the notability mark I don't think the publisher hits it either. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: What's up with the relisting? We have consensus. The Dissident Aggressor 03:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charon (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, although it is not my area of expertise. It has been tagged for notability for years, and there was no consensus at an AfD 4 years ago. I'm hopeful we can now develop a consensus. Pinging those who have examined its notability before: Rilak, Eduemoni, Keesekuchen, Nipsonanomhmata, Mean as custard. Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is well known in it's field, however it is not the type of thing which gets coverage in main stream media. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cl4 (programming language)

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

Contested prod. Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. ― Padenton|✉ 05:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No sources at all. I tried a few search term variants on Google, and all I found was a single 9 year old forum post mentioning it. Alsee (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero references not counting the now removed dead home page link. The PROD contest came with an empty edit history comment, that was the second SPA contribution 16 months after the creation of this article. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So rare that nobody has heard about it perhaps? I have read multiple textbooks about programming language construction and have never encountered this. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything about this in Google scholar, and it has no sources that would suggest any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on what little is known, Cl4 appears to have been designed in particular with embedded systems and Client/Server applications in mind. I thought I had a few promising leads on finding some more info, but they've all petered out. :-( Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At the very least I would suggest that it falls under WP:NOEFFORT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceannlann gorm (talk • contribs) 11:09, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
Delete A programming language that the article claims was "used widely in Australia, and some of the Asia Pacific region" should have a fair number of people trained in its usage as well as things such as reference books, journal mentions, and probably even a couple of websites supporting its user community. I have repeated the web searches mentioned above and received the same results. The lack of sources where they should be found clearly shows lack of notability and also suggests that this article may be a hoax. --Allen3 ^talk 11:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the other hand, just because it's obscure doesn't mean it's automatically a hoax. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be just a coincidence, but the original Siemens / Keith & Koep SIMpad was referred to as CL4. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Thought there might be a CL4 language/Qtopia linkage, but it was probably just a coincidence after all. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 23:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tijs Tinbergen

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

Non notable film maker that also has a not inherited issue-yes he may have famous uncles but he does not seem to be famous (his foreign wikis are the same also) Wgolf (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No indication why the nom believes the subject is non-notable or what they have done to determine this. His famous uncles neither make him notable nor non-notable. There appears to be sufficient coverage from the Netherlands and he appears to have won a significant award for one of his films: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (edit conflict) Google Translate of NL:Tijs_Tinbergen turned up what looks like a minor but Reliable Source interview, and via Google I found source naming him winner of a Golden_Calf_(award). I'll add both to the article. There were a substantial number of general Google hits. I didn't see anything else usable, but it seems possible that someone who speaks Dutch may be able to find more sources. Alsee (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Vujanovic

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

Basically a bio saying this is a painter and here is her site, not sure if she goes under notability or not. Wgolf (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not turning up any reliable sources concerning the subject. Fails WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if we are very liberate and generous when it comes to her she still fails to pass any kind of notability standard. I found very very little about her and all was eather forum posts of local news.Stepojevac (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Richman

AfDs for this article:

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

wp:promotion all of the sources are Sheldon himself Darkstar1st (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i redirected to the notable publication and was reverted without explaination [102] Darkstar1st (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Original nominator had added above material to previous AfD page. I've moved it here where it belongs. I'm neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has contributed to a broad range of journals and he is cited often enough. One generally has limited biographical information on scholars. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 23:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete The article shows he has published many articles in his own group's journals, and nothing more. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch (band)

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

Non-notable group lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Bio and three reviews at Allmusic ([103], [104], [105], [106]), and a staff review from Sputnik Music ([107]). Looks borderline but I suspect that there is more coverage out there. --Michig (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or weak keep I don't know what the guidelines are about Allmusic but I do know that they don't review just anyone. Correct me if I'm wrong but those reviews should count as sources. As a bonus, Sasquatch's label is one of the more important ones within their genre (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_rock). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - here's a review from The Aquarian Weekly [108] to go with the above sources. In total, the amount of coverage is not overwhelming, but in my view is just enough to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Pants

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

Non-notable cartoon lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredibly non-notable CN block of shorts even the CN'crufters didn't see fit to create an article about, and the 'I kinda think they removed it 'cause of the swears and drugs' writing is painful and likely untrue (the test-pattern ratings did it in). Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is programming which was broadcast on Cartoon Network. And there are articles of shows related to this. And incidentally, we don't delete stubs due to needing writing improvement or because more references are needed. None above appear to dispute it was broadcast on a major cable network. Sofixit comes immediately to mind... - jc37 17:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The writing makes it sound like it was a hoax though. I don't remember this airing at all, and the only sources in the article are commissions for the program's imaging, not actual press releases from the network talking about the show and what it's about. When the body of the article admits that that " (while) shorts have since reappeared via YouTube, a significant portion of them remain elusive", we're not exactly in the position of SOFIXIT, but on a search for sources that might not be there for a show that aired less than four weeks. I've known blocks on Nickelodeon that have lasted longer, in comparison. Finally, we are not required to be the official repository for everything with a title ever aired on Cartoon Network; that is not the purpose of the encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you actually do that "...a search for sources that might not be there for a show that aired less than four weeks"? It doesn't sound like it in your comments. I tried google and was at the very least able to establish that it wasn't a hoax (unless they were rather thorough and fooled quite a few more than I...). Again, due diligence trumps stating "delete" in a vaccuum. - jc37 19:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found one possible reliable source (Cartoon Brew) verifying that this show existed and aired on Cartoon Network in 2005, so it's definitely not a hoax, but beyond that... nothing. The creators don't have WP articles and we don't really have anything about this show besides the fact that the show was made, was aired, and an episode list. Therefore, since there doesn't seem to be anything else we can say about it... delete.

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing. There's not going to be much on the show since it only lasted under a month and at times, kids shows also don't get that much attention but obviously the former is the main explanation. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - I'll also note that merely being broadcast is no guarantee of notability. Neutrality^talk 03:52, 28 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. While I found some arguments on both sides lacking in terms of policy (Note that deletion policy generally argues that deletion is not an alternative for cleanup, and there's no sense here that cleanup has been attempted, similarly, note that an article is useful or needed is an "argument to avoid" within our policy), there are stronger arguments here made regarding scope and LISTN. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

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

List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States was already deleted through an AfD process. Similar reasons apply here:

Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source.

Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." This list not only omits denials, but also omits acquittals, which is really unacceptable.

Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. " Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association.

Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “state and local political scandals in the United States” are notable as a group.

The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time.

The main aim here is apparently to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted.

WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures.

WP:Recentism is violated (scandals from this millennium are given undue weight)

Unencylopedic.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep nomination does not understand and/or accept the section of the article named 'Scope and organization of political scandals' and is otherwise confusing scandals with crimes (convictions) and then saying that because an event is not a conviction it is not a scandal. Nothing could be further from the truth--as anyone with a knowledge of history will now. Other assertions above could be applied to nearly every article in WP--which is obviously not being done. The assertions for deletion are just a grab bag of anything and everything the nominator could find to say bad about articles and have little to do with this particular article. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why all the names of people who have not been convicted of anything? If those are all deleted, then there wouldn't be much left of this article, unfortunately. That distinguishes this article from a list of federal scandals (i.e. there would be plenty left of the federal list after names of non-convicted people are removed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a scandal is that it may or may not involve a crime and the people may or may not be charged or convicted as criminals. You are completely not understanding what a scandal is. It is a notorious event. Period. Hmains (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is more like a list of scandalous people than a list of scandals, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't involve a crime, it's trivial unless it's received heavy news coverage, and most of these are crimes. We're not a tabloid magazine. Most of those didn't even result in convictions so they shouldn't be on wikipedia in the first place. ― Padenton|✉ 02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list is based on original research. A single editor decided on a set of loosely related criteria to assemble this list. It flatly fails WP:LISTN which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,". The article has no sources that collectively discuss "state and local political scandals in the United States". There are sources available that discuss major political scandals in historical contexts, but none that I can find and that include state and local political scandals (but not national) in the US. A list such as this is far worse in my opinion than the recently deleted List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. The article also has WP:WEIGHT issues and likely runs afoul of WP:BLPCRIME.- Mr X 02:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is badly structured – the indenting of the Table of Contents makes no sense – I think the states should be a level below the date ranges ... or is it the other way around? But aside from that, this is an inherently bad subject to try to make lists out of, with BLP violations likely due to the vague criteria for inclusion. And there is nothing useful for the reader to learn. Do some states have more scandals than others? Hard to tell from here. Are the number of scandals increasing over time? Yes, drastically ... unless this is just recentism in the inclusions, which is quite likely. Lists of this nature are okay if they are clearly defined, limited in scope, and not susceptible to recentism; see List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded for a good example. But this, no. I under that Hmains and some other editors have put a lot of work into this over the years and will be dismayed if it ends up not being visible anymore (been there, had that done to me). But I think this is an inherently flawed topic, badly implemented. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually, other than some copyedits from time to time and reorgs, I did add any content to this article. I will not be dismayed about anything; I wrote above what I thought and that is all. Hmains (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia prohibits some but not all original research. The compilation of lists and the application of categories is a sort of original research which is commonly encouraged, so I am not concerned that the compilation of this list is original research.

I expect that the items in lists come with references, and the items in this list do. I expect that the categorization of entries into a list will be mostly noncontroversial, and I think that the categorization of the events here as "state and local political scandals in the United States" is noncontroversial, even if it is controversial to give prominence to these events.

Some might say that the individual events listed within this Wikipedia article do not pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and would not pass WP:AFD. That might be so, but not every item in every list needs to be considered in the context of passing WP:AFD, and multiple concepts which are not individually notable might be combined into an article like this list and collectively pass notability criteria.

I think an article with this title should exist. In the past I have also supported the development of a similar article, List of scandals in India. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does keeping this mean that the material from the already deleted List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States could be reinserted here? - Location (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like added reason to delete this article. If it is deleted, there would still remain List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes which is a very valid Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the apparent inclusion criteria of this list (essentially anything that is widely covered in the news at some point and involves a politician), yeah I'd say everything in that list could validly be added to this article, and the same problems with that list are present here (with the addition of WP:UGLY). Though of course, it looks like this is clearly pointing to delete, so don't bother. List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes is the only one that I think should remain. Mere scandals are more appropriate in that person's article rather than a list. There's just not enough space per person in a list to provide objective information without violating WP:UNDUE. Granted, some unconvicted scandals are notable (i.e. Watergate, LewinskyGate (sorry, couldn't resist), maybe JFK's affairs), but these are notable enough to merit entire articles by themselves, where there is plenty of room to provide due weight and all sides of the incident(s). ― Padenton|✉ 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Wikipedia is not a compendium of tabloid scandals, especially as what is or is not a "scandal" has no clear or concrete definition. What is sourcable and relevant from this list should be noted in the BLPs of the people involved. No reader, upon reading this mess that looks like a regurgitation by 1,000 howler monkeys onto their 1,000 typewriters, will come away with any deeper understanding or insight into political scandals in the US. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howler monkeys? Takes one to know one. None of these entries are from tabloids, they all have reliable sources, multiple if necessary.Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scandals can be covered either in their own article if they are deemed major enough or in the persons article if they are minor and play a notable part in their career. That way due wieght and context can be provided. What we have here is a laundry list of mainly minor politicians with mainly minor scandals. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reeks of PoV fork to me. The low visibility of the page (given that few of the people connected link to it) preventing people from noticing it and checking to make sure edits are wikipedia-worthy and follow WP:BLP. Also, WTF is up with the Table of Contents? Each entry needs looking at. If not deleted outright for inadequate sources, they should be merged to the respective people articles or the related state/local government page. ― Padenton|✉ 02:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you had looked at every entry, if not, how do you know it reeks of POV? I see none. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the exact same reason we deleted the other one. These should not exist. They are POV magnets and eternally a BLP violation just waiting to happen. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV magnet? Aren't all political articles POV magnets? This one is well researched with minimal comment. Again, I see no POV. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - those stating Delete are simply wrong. This is a list that is needed, and is notable. That it might not be formatted correctly is a issue that needs to be brought up at the articles talk page. AfD should not be used for clean-up or formatting issues. There also seem to be different opinions concerning PoV, so I dont see a reason for deletion at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr. There are multiple concerns in the article concerning original research, undue weight and PoV. Perhaps this would be better as a category rather than a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no POV violations in any entry, if you do, change it. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a scandal is inherently PoV. --Enos733 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It appears to me that most of the people here have been convicted or at least resigned their positions under fire. This includes entries who quit their jobs to avoid prosecution or make prosecution moot and/or those who are obviously working at the direction of others. Official investigations, indictments and charges are never made lightly and should be noted. State and Local investigations, charges and convictions are just as important as federal ones if not more so and this list makes a valuable contribution. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The huge problems with this list can be illustrated by considering the first three scandalous people on this list: Mike Hubbard, Terry Spicer, and Lowell Barron. The entry on Hubbard unfairly fails to mention his denial: “Mike Hubbard expressly and emphatically denies any wrongdoing”.[109] Spicer was convicted so he's on the list of convicted state or local politicians, so this entry is superfluous. As for Barron, this list completely fails to mention that all charges were dismissed in August 2014.[110] This list is full of bogus and misleading information like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadyglenns:Resigning under fire does not mean anything necessarily happened. Investigations, indictments, and charges are indeed made lightly, all the time. ― Padenton|✉ 17:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear that this is redundant considering that there is a page that has a list politicians that have been found guilty of criminal charges, Would be slanted towards a negative PoV and may violate the biographies on living persons policy, Most of the entries seem to have just a single source and it would talk far more time then it is worth to solve all of the issues of the article. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uncompletable and ill-defined list which is essentially a coatrack for politicized slagging... Let's just call this "unencyclopedic" and move on. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically synthesis and cherry picking, as noted by the many Delete !votes above. "Keep" opinions, like "this is a needed list" are utterly ungrounded in policy and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)>[reply]
Delete per TheGRVOfLightning. Also, don't we have categorizes for such a long list? - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyes (EP)

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

This album is'nt notable and no receive any pleace or notable chart please redirect to T-ara discography (Pikhmikh (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the better solution is merging Lovey-Dovey (T-ara song) into the article. Contrary to what Pikhmikh said, the album charted on the national music charts of Korea and Japan. That doesn't guarantee notability, but the lead single is definitely notable and a merged article could likely be further improved and expanded. Random86 (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oricon Chart is in the Wikipedia:Record_charts#Recommended_charts, so this seems to meet WP:NSONG. If you reply to me, please echo me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This album did chart in Korea as well as Japan. As with another article, I think I deleted the Korean charts in a fit of pique because they were messed up and unreferenced and an editor was harassing me over a proposed merge. As with the Kara album this nom also AFD'd, this EP spawned at least one hit, which is kind of how Korean EP's work - they are vehicles for a big song release. If there's not a lot to say about the song and EP separately from each other, per WP:SONG, it's best to merge the song into the EP, which has been proposed. I don't really get the nom's rationale for claiming this EP isn't notable. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This nomination was not correctly transcluded to the AfD log. It has been added to the 2015 April 2 AfD log page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 23:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day & Night (EP)

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

This album is'nt notable and is without chart please redirect to Kara discography (Pikhmikh (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't see how this meets WP:NSONG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The absence of chart placements on this article doesn't mean the EP didn't chart. In fact, I think I may have removed it one day because it was all screwed up and unsourced. It hit #3 on Gaon and was in the top 100 for the entire year of 2014. Beyond the non-charting claim, I can't really understand the nom's assertion that this album isn't notable. It need only pass WP:GNG, and there are already a couple of RS on the article. The article needs work but I can't see any basis for deleting it, especially if the proposed merge of its hit single goes through. (Psst, @Piotrus:: this is an album, not a song. ^^) Shinyang-i (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This nomination was not correctly transcluded to the AfD log. It has been added to the 2015 April 2 AfD log page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Dynamics

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

I don't see why this outfit, which merely releases stand-up comedy sets, is notable. There is a claim of Grammyness (under the old name), but apparently no Grammys were won--moreover, one would think that the honor would go to the people on the album, not to the record company. Also, lack of sourcing, etc. You'll find a kind of directory in the history, but I do not believe that this is the kind of label that ought to be deemed notable because there are releases by notable people: it's not the label in this case that produces albums; I think they just release them. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORP or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Dynamics is a comedy production and distribution company. Its independent archive is the largest in existence and it is second in producing content, only behind Comedy Central. It also produces a library of specials for Netflix. I am currently working on sourcing all of the releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedydynamics (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless better sources to establish notability are found and the COI issues are resolved. Eeekster (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial improvements have been made and will continue to be made. I don't believe the page should be up for deletion anymore. comedydynamics — Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are still not significant references from independent reliable sources, as required by WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organization or product HAS attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, including The New York Times. Notability is not synonymous with fame or importance and the organization has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture and entertainment. Just because large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability doesn’t mean smaller organizations and their products can’t be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.ComedyGuy15 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)(talk)[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! 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Metcalf (actor)

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

Obscure actor with just a few roles. Now he did win a award at a film festival though which is one thing that made me unsure to put this up or not. Wgolf (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not really seeing much evidence of notability. If he only had the three moves under his belt, but one of them was a very notable movie and he had a big role in it, and got a ton of press for it I'd vote to keep, but I'm not sure these are going to cut it. Bali88 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - should the article on the actor be deleted, please can you move Ryan Metcalf (footballer) over the disambiguation page at Ryan Metcalf? Giant Snowman 07:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 23:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth a redirect to Bridge and Tunnel (film), assuming that's a notable film and not just puffery, since it seems to have been his only major role. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and move Ryan Metcalf (footballer) to Ryan Metcalf .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkos Design

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

I believe this firm fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I did find one source from a link they provided that still works[111] but, I'm failing to find reliable secondary sources that talk significantly about the subject. Perhaps others can prove me wrong. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a routine business with no particular claim to notability. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Appears to be a lame attempt April Fool's humour. Michig (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk County Council

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

Obvious hoax, no claim of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - obviously notable. I respectfully suggest that it is this nomination that is the hoax. Just Chilling (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it respectful that you think it's a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain why you think a well referenced article on a major local authority is a hoax? Just Chilling (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Norfolk" should be "The Northern Folk of the East Angles", abbreviating the true name is grossly insulting.
"In 1902, the council consisted solely of landowners"- not true, they were all farmers.
"The United Kingdom local elections, 2013 saw UKIP become the second largest party in Norfolk County Council and the Labour Party third"- that can't be true, because Norfolk isn't full of racists, the only people who would vote UKIP.
"First past the post"- they actually just throw pitchforks at each other to decide who gets elected.
As you can see, this is an obvious hoax page. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The article is clearly notable. Every other county council of England has their own article because local government is considered important. The nomination shouldn't be taken seriously - you need only read the nominator's so-called reasons for deletion above. Duffit5 ^talk 07:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian National University. The article content is still available in the article history for possible merging. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenner Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 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, Nakon 03:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Diaz (soccer)

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

Concern was despite making a U.S. Open Cup appearance for Orlando in 2014, he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL because it came against an amateur side. He also fails WP:GNG because he hasn't received significant coverage. PROD contested by IP user without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– User:Elopez76 -keep has signed two pro contracts, has played an official first team match with his first club in a federation sanctioned cup competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.108.183 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I said? A player does meet WP:NFOOTBALL by playing in a domestic cup match IF the match features two fully pro teams. While Orlando was a fully pro team, Ocala Stampede was not. And signing a professional contract does nothing. – Michael (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes I read everything you wrote and I disagree, I believe since he is a professional player and played in an official match for a fully professional team that should qualify him as notable. I find it ridiculous that college basketball players and other collegiate athletes can qualify yet soccer players did not. User:Elopez76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.108.183 (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. His one match was against a PDL team, which is not fully pro so he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another game sat on the bench today. Ah, the lot of the 2nd string keeper on a reserve squad. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yes, Virginia.... It looks like the discussion agrees to fall back to a redirect slakr^\ talk / 06:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delilah (The Dresden Dolls song)

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[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) 05:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At worst, redirect to Yes, Virginia... rather than delete. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with comment WP:SONGS#Notability supports redirecting to the containing album: "Most songs ... should redirect to another relevant article, such as ... a prominent album ...". So I agree, that "at worst, redirect to Yes, Virginia... rather than delete." — Lentower (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. In the limited time I have had in the last few days, I have not found any great WP quality sources for this song, Delilah. But in the interviews and reviews I have read about this song and the album it's on, this song is mentioned most frequently. I added one source. I also added {{notability}} seeking others to wok on this article. Further research should find better sources. There are also several print sources, not on the Internet, that can be checked. They will take a while to track down. — Lentower (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[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 02:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Absolutely no sources to support a claim of independent notability. Neutrality^talk 04:03, 28 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 Built to Spill#EPs. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabonis Tracks

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Built to Spill#EPs. I don't think this really needed to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion A7. The original editor all but admitted the subject is not yet notable on the talk page, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Clear case for speedy delete. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Glover

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

Not sure about notability here-had the blp prod removed a few times, too soon? Wgolf (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be In Love Tonight (Toy Connor song)

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

This song shows no indication of notability. Use in a TV show and included on a compilation to promote up-and-coming artists over 2 years ago doesn't mean the song itself has achieved any sort of notability. The song has not received any signficant coverage in reliable sources. Half of this article is about Now 44 Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 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 02:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Silverchair discography. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Freak Box

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Silverchair discography. I agree that it doesn't warrant its own article, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find zero coverage of the album in anything that can be considered reliable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Silverchair discography - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Silverchair discography, in line with Michig and David Gerard. –shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I agree with Michig's arguement. Dan arndt (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Silverchair discography. –Davey2010^Talk 03:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Philippines Earth 2015

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

Reads like a crystal ball and advertising. No sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is the major issue with this article that we are to consider when discussing deletion? It surprises me that Miss Philippines Earth (or any beauty pageant) has a wikipedia article for each year, but apparently that's the way it's done. It appears that there is a stand alone article for each year of Miss Philippines Earth and the ones I looked at do not have any issues with sourcing. I suspect after the pageant occurs, there will be plenty of reliable sources to add to the article so I don't really have any worries that this article will be fully and reliably sourced the way the other ones are. Perhaps it's a little early to have it in mainspace. Personally, I would keep it in my sandbox until the pageant, but it's only a couple months out, so it's not unreasonably early. Do you think we should delete the article and re-create the article in 2 months? Bali88 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't fault User:The Banner for being absolutely ignorant of reliable sources in the Philippines, but the Philippine Star and the Freeman are reputable newspapers, and the Philippine Information Agency is the government's news agency. Rappler has its faults but usually passes RS often enough to be consider reliable. Missphilippinesearth.com looks like a primary source and should only be used on things such as candidates lists, which what was done here. –H T D 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please keep your PAs to yourself? Thanks.
- When you start looking properly, you can see the part about the pageant itself is absolutely unsourced. It is only the list of entrants that have sources and most of those those sources are related so prove nothing. The Banner talk 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several third party verifiable sources that support the article. Actually, some of the participants are drawing attention in various newspapers in the country of origin (and even in other countries) in their participation to the pageant . The following articles are examples:
- Rappler source
- The Times of India source
- Philippine Daily Inquirer source
- Philippine Entertainment Portal source
- ABS-CBN News source
- Philippine Information Agency source
- Rappler source
- Philippine Star source
- Baguio Midland Courier source
- Kicker Daily News source
- Cagayan de Oro and Misamis Oriental News source

For sure the pageant will draw more attention as the pageant progresses. --Richie Campbell (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Richie Campbell, with these sources, [112],[113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], the article subject has significant coverage over multiple WP:RS and crosses the threshold of notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - The article has no reliable sources about the pageant itself... The Banner talk 21:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lineup Atlantic

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

No indication of notability, all their sources are primary. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a article I have been wondering to put a AFD or a prod or what for a while. I will say delete. Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. They have some industry connections, so might well become notable one day. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are from unreliable sources. Deb (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best coverage I could find were in two college newspapers: brief mentions on the subject as an opening act to Aaron Carter. Too soon, it appears. Gongshow talk 07:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skin (Hayder novel)

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

Rather obscure novel with no refs that has been tagged for notability since 2009 Wgolf (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com:
1. From Booklist:
  *Starred Review* Tired of all those lame vampire and goth horror books? Ready for something really scary? This is it. Easily today’s best writer of visceral and elemental horror, Hayder handles her genre specialty in a way guaranteed to creep out even the strongest of heart. No Lovecraftian excesses here. Hayder writes about monsters that could be real, yanked from some dank recess of the id. This combo of police procedural and African mythology continues the story from her earlier novel Ritual (2008) and marks the fourth appearance of Detective Inspector Jack Caffery and forensic diver “Flea” Marley. The enigmatic monster dubbed the Tokoloshe is also back and intertwined into a murder mystery that may, or may not, involve the supernatural. What it definitely does involve is someone or something that likes skin—especially when it’s separated from its original owner. Thus far, Hayder has been too edgy to achieve widespread recognition, but this just could be the book that launches her beyond cult favorite to mainstream star. --Elliott Swanson
2. From The Daily Telegraph:
  Warped ... bloodthirsty ... No matter how much you despise yourself for getting sucked into such places, Hayder is brilliant at making you read on.
3. From the Daily Mirror:
  Hayder is the closest we've got to Stephen King ... the goriest thriller writer this side of the pond
4. From The Guardian:
  Hayder's gory insights into the dark are compelling
5. From The Guardian:
  Fast paced and absorbing ... complex and gripping
Here are other sources about the subject:
1. Anderson, Patrick (2010-01-02). "Book World reviews Mo Hayder's 'Skin'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
2. Levin, Martin (2010-04-09). "Review: Skin, by Mo Hayder". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
3. Beecroft, Weedy (2009-06-18). "Skin, Mo Hayder". Lawyers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03 – via LexisNexis.
4. "SKIN by Mo Hayder". Kirkus Reviews. 2009-12-15. Archived from the original on 2015-04-03. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
5. Sutton, Henry (2009-03-27). "Books: Gore Blimey, It's Mo; Book of the Week Skin by Mo Hayder". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 2015-04-03.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Skin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and WP:NBOOK, which specifically states that reviews such as the ones Cunard found count for notability purposes. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:51, 10 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.

[1] "About 971,000 search results". Google. Retrieved 2015-04-02.

[2] "Alexa Ranking". Retrieved 2015-04-02.

[1]

[2]