Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 March	2 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rodriguez Australian Tour 2007

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

Unsourced, orphaned and non-notable concert tour that fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT. The article has been tagged as only using primary sources for over seven years, but it actually has no sources. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not notable, fails WP:CONCERT TOUR. Keri (talk) 10:51, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss and Mister Catalan Nation

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

Article based on dead links with no articles at all for the winners. This pageants with just three mentioned editions, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Keri (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Elias

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

Technically unsourced biography of a living person, because most of the external links are dead. Those that work, are either self-published by the subject, or do not mention the subject at all. I do not see notability established. bender235 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Keri (talk) 10:56, 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 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paralyzed (Agnez Mo song)

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

Unotable album that is a coi also. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janji-Janji Wgolf (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Keri (talk) 11:00, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naraparaju Ramchander Rao

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

Poorly sourced article that reads like promo for this politician The Banner talk 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now meets WP:POLITICIAN#1 as a member of the Telangana Legislative Council.[1] Though the article could do with a thorough rewrite - it was fairly obviously written in support of the subject's candidacy, and the only thing saving it now is that his election was announced last week. PWilkinson (talk) 13:17, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Politicians do not meet [Wikipedia:BLP|BLP]]. This article does not qualify BLP marginally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantos (talk • contribs) 12:26, 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]
Keep. Yes, per WP:POLITICIAN all state assembly members are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN; agree with Peter above that it does need some fixing up, however. Keri (talk) 11:04, 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. General consensus that the article is notable (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GMB Akash

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

Article written like a self-promoting resume. Not notable enough as a photographer. No non-trivial coverage on news and media found. There are many photographers of similar profile in Bangladesh; we are not gonna make a directory of all of them on Wikipedia. nafSadh did say 20:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. nafSadh did say 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, on the basis Akash has won a number of significant awards, as proven by the UK news articles. He seems to be a widely exhibited international photographer. The excessive tag-bombing last month was not entirely justified. Of course, I'm not convinced everything on that list is actually an award and the article could do with better secondary sourcing. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could say WP:TOOSOON, but it is too too soon. ~ nafSadh did say 02:27, 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, nafSadh did say 22:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Represented by Panos Pictures. (Which is currently a red link, which just goes to show that Wikipedia is a bit ... challenged.) Poor article, dismally sourced, on somebody who is clearly noteworthy. If there are indeed many photographers of similar profile in Bangladesh, I hope we are gonna make a directory of all of them on Wikipedia. (Though of course reliably sourced.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable photographer, poor quality of article is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Keri (talk) 11:08, 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. Delete all j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Film Critics Society

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

Appears to be a non notable "award mill". Some mentions online, but those are mostly blogs and industry publications, not mainstream reliable sources. Wikipedia really doesn't need an article on every award mill in existence. Additionally, I am nominating:

Individual awards by years, by categories, related template and related category. Please review before commenting/voting. Collapsing for brevity, due to extreme length. Safiel (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I think that is everything. Safiel (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them - non-notable WP:PROMO. terrible. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them for reasons above, and for parity with other non-notable regional film-critic groups that have been deleted for lack of secondary sourcing for notability and whose greatest exposure comes from Wikipedia itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 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 IAR close. The nomination has been withdrawn and discussion has moved to Talk:Bombay_Time_(time_zone)#Requested_move_2_April_2015. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Time

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

~~DAB page where only one article belongs now (since the other was deleted Wgolf (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)~~ withdrawn[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as Housekeeping, and move Bombay Time (time zone) -> Bombay Time. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1st entry does meet MOS:DABMENTION and there is a very similar see also I've added. I think it is borderline whether this should be a requested move Bombay Time to Bombay Time (disambiguation), and the time zone put at the primary, or just establish time zone as primary with hatnote(s). Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No need for a dab page: add both hatnote links to the time zone article and move it to the base name (ie Boleyn's 2nd option). Needs to be a formal WP:RM of the time zone article, I suppose. PamD 09:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the hatnotes to Bombay Time (time zone). @Wgolf: would you like to withdraw the nomination so we can put this up at WP:RM? (I'd have done it myself but I think it probably gets complicated to have an AfD and a RM going on simlutaneously) PamD 09:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Done! Wgolf (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: RM now at Talk:Bombay Time (time zone) PamD 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: "Keep" doesn't seem quite accurate as a description of the outcome here. As I understand it, the outcome is to move the discussion to Talk:Bombay Time (time zone), where an RM request has been opened. The outcome of that RM might confirm the suggestion to delete the dab page that was the topic of this AfD. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note self reverted NAC closure after the above comment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 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 Speedily deleted.. Sam Walton (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scopia Effect (movie)

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

Recently released film which doesn't appear to be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 21:10, 1 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 02:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Johns

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

Obscure band with no refs at all and can't find any notability. As a side note I also just prodded a article under The Johns (Chicago band) (which the only reason why I found this was because I was wondering what the johns would link to-trying to avoid making a toilet joke lol) Wgolf (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

somehow this got afd twice. Not sure how that happened! Wgolf (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - clearly WP:PROMO. looked for sources, found none, although the creator's edit note reads "(Established page for The johns, a top performiung act out of NYC with international name recognition)" I think that says it all. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, promotional, non-notable under any criteria, this source is a copy from Wikipedia. This video] shows a live performance with about half a dozen spectators. Kraxler (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Baron

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

Actress with little notability who basically is just a guest star on tv shows (if you can consider her a guest star since she wouldn't be notable enough to be one). Outside of Boston Public all of her guest appearances are basically 1 or 2 episodes a show. Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A series of guest appearances don't get past WP:NACTOR, nor does an infrequent supporting role on a show. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete This looks like a vanity page. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:23, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1769 Carlostorres

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

Doesnt meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

keep (redirect to list) per WP:NASTRO and estensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST these should redirect to the list -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. It's accepted practice! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Astrocog, I think it is, but Tom.Reding may want to comment here, because Tom asked me to stop redirecting the asteroids below the number 2000. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just reflecting the consensus I noticed earlier this year here regarding another user redirecting asteroids <= 2000, which were eventually unredirected. As long as the relevant projects are notified, I don't care.

It might be more appropriate for you to do the notification, however, since the number of users watching these pages is probably low. I'm glad 65.94.43.89 happened on these.

Redirect My opinion, if the only information on these pages can also be fully expressed in a list. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIR, the idea was that for asteroids <2000 that each be evaluated independently and individually, and not end up in bundle nominations or bot-assisted-redirection or mass redirects (such as AWB) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Astrocog. I couldn't find any suitable scholarly references; only Schmadel (2003). Praemonitus (talk) 15:47, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarón Fernández Sorroche

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY, never played for anything above Segunda División B. PROD was contested based on inadequately supported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've added a PROD before, never played in any professional level and is not notable enough. MYS 77 ^✉ 20:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG --–Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they've said the policy above, never played in the pros. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 04:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3rd level players are not default notable, nothing else would cause him to pass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1579 Herrick

(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. Could be worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep (redirect to list) per extensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST and per recommendations at WP:NASTRO -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Follows the practice of our WP:NASTRO guideline. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Astrocog due to lack of suitable sources. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 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. Hoaxa! j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O-Ha!

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

Short lived tv show with only 4 episodes (even though oddly it says 29 on the side bar) that has no refs at all and can't find info (but to be fair-with a title like O-ha it be kind of hard to find the exact title) Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This show may never have even existed, given that most of the few Google results for it are Wikipedia mirrors. Everymorning talk 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everymorning-I just tagged it as a hoax and am going to send it to the hoax talk page. Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-the creator of the article was blocked for creating hoaxes it seems. I have tagged a few of his articles recently for being unreferenced and possibly non notable(surprised none of them had these tags!) Only about 2 or 3 of the shows I have found he created articles for actually had either a IMDB page or a wiki page in another language even! Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Zero references to this television programme; not even IMDB has a page about it. Thus this programme is a fake. The Snowager-is awake 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no non-Wiki references when using Google. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tempe Girl

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

The second AFD from Template:Unidentified decedent after fellow non-notable not-news subject Lyle Stevik. The most notable thing about this article is that it hosts the authors own original illustration of the subject.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no historical significance to this death. Aside from the local news sources, the subject has been the subject of a single CNN article in their cold cases column, and an appearance in a forensics trade publication. This is not significant coverage, every national newspaper covers more notable topics on every single page, every single day. - hahnch e n 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, subject is notable per WP:Victim and WP:ONEEVENT. CNN is still a nationwide publication, yes? Still a reasonable amount of recognition if the topic makes national news. See related discussion at this link which adequately applies to this nomination. As mentioned in the AFD for Pemiscot County Does, 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 --GouramiWatcher^(?) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject meets WP:VICTIM.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is clearly forum shopping by hahnchen to impose his subjective (not objective) view of what Wikipedia should be. Paul Austin (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG - Notability is there so seeing no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (keep). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 18:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Boulevard

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

This is difficult, because I don't speak Bulgarian. I couldn't establish that this street meets WP:NPLACE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. It has been tagged as such for over 3 years (tagged by MilkStraw532. It has mentions online/in the news, but not enough that I am convinced it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG explicitly permits the use of non-English sources as evidence of notability. Just a few seconds of searching yields plenty of coverage from the likes of Bulgaria Dnes, bTV (Bulgaria) and TV7 (Bulgaria). [2][3] [4] That's probably why Andreas Philopater de-prodded the nom's prod. English language editors not speaking a foreign language or not bothering to do a translate of web-available foreign language work is not a reason to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oakshade, there is no need to be rude. From reading my nomination, you can see that I have written that it has mentions online and in the news. My concern is whether they meet the criteria of being significant mentions and whether the mentions add up to WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By reding your nomination you indicate that you didn't know if it was notable because you "don't speak Bulgarian." Not being being able to determine the significance of coverage in non-English sources, or not even trying to (see WP:BEFORE), is not a reason to AfD an article. AfD is used when we truly believe a topic doesn't merit an article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your total misreading. I stated that 'this is difficult, because I don't speak Bulgarian.' That is a little different from 'This should be deleted, because I don't speak Bulgarian.' The rest of my discussion - ' It has mentions online/in the news, but not enough that I am convinced it is notable' shows clear WP:BEFORE. Please don't assume bad faith and bite people's heads off based on your misreading. Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This road seems to be on a par with roads such as Norodom Boulevard, which is notable. If sufficient sources can be found, as users above have indicated they can, then there is no reason this article cannot be kept and expanded. Rcsprinter¹²³ (relate) @ 09:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade and Rcsprinter123 - Nominating because "you don't speak Bulgarian" is pretty much disruptive - I don't speak German so should we get rid of every German-related article on here?, Anyway even I have found sources [5][6], Think I might go and nominate Hohenzollern Castle on the basis that I can't read German... –Davey2010^Talk 17:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, you've completely misread my words, which I have also clarified above. I in no way said that I nominated this because I don't speak Bulgarian. Happy to withdraw nomination accepting the assessments above. Thanks to everyone who commented on the notability of this article. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn - It too me honestly reads like "I don't know the language so I'll nominate it", I sincerely apologize If I'm wrong but that's how I perceived it to be, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 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. Nakon 22:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suhas Gopinath

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

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

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

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

Delete - This article contains content that is written totally like an advertisement. Even though Gopinath is not at all a significant entrepreneur to be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for people who have just received some awards, even though the awards are also not significant. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In support to Keep the article I would like to share these independent links to enhance the credibility of the article and even Jimmy Wales has supported against the vandalism on this article two times. None of the News Agencies have used this article as the source of reference. Even the press about Suhas Gopinath by The Economist is also a validation. I am surprised that this article that has been there for so many years is flagged for deletion, request to independently verify the news sources below:

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 122.167.220.86 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Naveen Bombatkar — 122.167.220.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to Closing Admin - I wouldn't be surprised to recognize the above 'Keep' vote by Suhas Gopinath himself in order to defend his article from getting deleted. Moreover as per the archives the claim made above that "Jimmy Wales has supported against Vandalism for this article is rather a false claim and should be simply ignored. Dormantos (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Dormantos^buzz 07:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Dormantos (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored) Very Strong Delete - I have made a research on this article. Let's begin from the very beginning.

The article was published on 31 August 2006 called "World's Youngest CEO" and not "Suhas Gopinath" by VisionIndia who hasn't edited any other article on Wikipedia. Article was published on basis of 2 references of [[14]], [[15]] out of which the first one is non-notable as per Wikipedia:BLP. Surprisingly, even BBC does not certifies him to be the "World's Youngest CEO" at a time when this article was created by VisionIndia with a title of World's Youngest CEO which is quite surprising.

Current Status: It's not surprising to see many sources blooming up as a result of getting this article live on Wikipedia. Maybe this article is a source for many news sources to write upon.
Dead Links: References 6, 7, 8, 10 which are [[16]], [[17]], [[18]] and [[19]] are completely dead are invalid sources are should be removed immediately.
Personal Sources: Reference #4 which is [[20]] is a personal blog and not a independent news agency and hence stands non-reliable source. Reference #2 which is [[21]] a Crunchbase profile. Seriously, how do profile certify the notability.

As has been discussed previous at WP:RSN local city supplements of Times of India (and other Indian newspapers) are not reliable sources. The two main sources cited in the article are the Nagpur-city sections of [22] and city section of [23] and also [[24]] and it is clear from reading those pieces too that they are essentially a write-up of the subject's biography as related by him and his family (this is typical for the metro sections). Lacking any independent reliable sources the subject fails to meet WP:GNG.Dormantos (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored) Comment | Note to closing admin As per the article's history and edit records, there is been immense attempts in blanking, unnecessary moving, and repeated vandalism over this article. By vandalism, I want to mean that article was stuffed up with all non-sense stuff such as interviews, personal views etc. and that too by editors who no more have accounts on Wikipedia. Seems quite strange. They can be called sock-puppets as per Wikipedia:SPI: Nasib, 203.153.40.156, 203.200.213.98, 59.160.198.146, 122.167.2.211, Naveenk1, 125.18.168.157, Naveenkumar india, Chandanrkumar, Naveenkk2000, 121.243.255.78, 99.231.244.199, Globals media (Globals Inc. itself?), and 72.95.208.164. Out of 14, 8 are IP which have worked to promote the article and not expanding. Moreover account of Globals Media is sufficient to prove the account is of his company Globals Inc. The account has been already blocked indefinitely as per record [[25]]. It is no surprise that the IP addresses are sock-puppets of Globals Media working only for promoting this article. Dormantos (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the priority of the comment taking into notice that this has nothing to do with AFD. Instead I have created a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Globals_media. Dormantos (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Dormantos seems to have registered specifically to comment on this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dormantos has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. As such, I have striken his comments on this AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject passes the GNG as indicated by the many reliable sources already in the article and others found in a quick news search. Past promotional editing (even if it occurred) is never a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay thanks ThaddeusB for your explanation. So shall I take it as you oppose my one point and accept my rest of the points mentioned above. I believe Wikipedia accept articles that have coverage in regular media and not creating sources based on claims made primarily on Wikipedia. I will surely respond if you have any queries regarding my research over the article. Dormantos (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dormantos, I think Suhas Gopinath is trying to be smart! And creating buzz for his article. Note for Suhas Gopinath & Globals Media: Nobody is late to enter in Wikipedia but you need to achieve a lot more in real life than you think. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis subject meets WP:GNG with online and (now) offline news coverage from 2003 to date. The sourcing could certainly do with tightening-up and improving, but that's not a reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holds the title "The Youngest CEO" by the India Book of Records.[26]. Meets WP:SIGCOV as there are numerous sources available. Mkdw ^talk 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of coverage in independent reliable sources, both in India and internationally, including a full-length biographical article in Der Spiegel. Easily passes WP:GNG. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I refactored this AFD. The nominator's statement had been pushed down out of order and the comments by Dormantos and others were nearly unreadable due to the mass bolding and prose/paragraph styles. The links were in long form as well. The discussion before the refactoring can be found here. Considering the edit patterns and format style of both the nominator and Dormantos, I have concerns about socking on both sides of this discussion. Mkdw ^talk 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / ~~Delete / Keep~~ - OK everyone! If Wikipedia is now accepting the articles of these type of entrepreneurs by there publicity only and without knowing there financial details such as turnover etc. even the company is not also on Wikipedia then, I must say I have 100+ names of more popular entrepreneurs to write about. Shall I start writing about them? or This article is old, so that we have to give any kind of privileges. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Sharma's Knowledge, notability is not determined by things like financial detail and turnover. If enough reliable and independent sources have written about an individual, they are considered notable. Notability and success are two different things. Moreover, we treat companies very differently than how we treat articles about people. If you have 100+ other individuals, whom meet our WP:GNG policy, then I would say go ahead. However, you need a clear understanding of how GNG works to do so first. Mkdw ^talk 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw, Thanks for your deep explanation. I am reading Wikipedia from years and thought that the Wikipedia platform is for the people who are extremely popular in there work industry and have extreme Media Coverage. THE REASON OF NOMINATION - Because for example if industry icon such as - Manu Agarwal, Founder of Naaptol & others are not on Wikipedia then, a entrepreneur like Suhas Gopinath without having much popularity or financial releases in Media should not be on Wikipedia by my point of view. Else I am an Editor and the decision is in your hands as a Administrator there is no reason to debate further. Thanks Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have no more authority in AFD discussions than any other editor aside from closings. Your opinion and comments are equally valued to mine and it is the merits of our talking points against current policies and guidelines that should decide the outcome. The issue of what constitutes notability is a hotly debated topic and you are not alone in thinking that the current inclusion criteria is too relaxed. I would encourage you to continue to participate as notability can change as determined through consensus by the community. WP:NMUSIC is a good example where the criteria changed a considerable amount in the last few years. Mkdw ^talk 20:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkdw, Thanks for your explanation. I have created an basic article of Manu Agarwal, Founder of Naaptol. I am still in the process of editing and making article good, hope for your best support. Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily notable, if it's poorly written WP:JUSTFIXIT, don't drag it into AfD. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 05:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Referring to the List of Indian entrepreneurs, Kochuousep Chittilapilly, Anand Deshpande, Byrraju Ramialinga Raju, Dr. G. Surender Rao do not have their article even though their companies have a Wikipedia article. Also refer that Varun Agarwal has got a Wikipedia article even though his company Alma Mater Store hasn't got one. This was in reply to @Preeti Sharma's Knowledge. Commenting on accusing me of sock-puppetry by @Mkdw, it's quite surprising to see that anyone who opposes you are considered as sock puppets by you in your Wikipedia. Even I know that the consensus for this article is obviously keep and neither I have forced anyone to vote in my favour. I have listed the dead links and links to personal blogs in the article of Suhas Gopinath that needs to be rectified with more valid sources. I am new to Wikipedia and I need time to familiarise with it's policies. Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Dormantos (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the SPI tag to the top of this AFD because you raised concerns about sock puppetry in the discussion and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Globals_media. You also listed several IPs in this discussion in a note to the closing admin. It was then I noticed that other editors had filed an SPI against you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64. I find it quite surprising that you'd come to the conclusion that "anyone who opposes [me] are considered sock puppets". I rarely participate at SPI nor did I file anything against you. It's rather ironic because I added the top template in support of comments you made. I think WP:BITE is a great policy, and aside from the SPI, which you shouldn't take personally, because if no wrongdoing has been done then it will settle the issue. I don't think anyone has mistreated you and plenty of people have taken the time to explain their positions despite this being a fairly clear cut case of meeting our main policy on notability. Likewise, if you expect others to be nice to you, then I suggest you carefully measure your words and avoid strong accusations like the broad statement you made about me in what I can assume good faith was a misunderstanding. Mkdw ^talk 17:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mkdw. I apologize for being harsh to you. I really don't know why I was under constant attack when I joined Wiki and posted on this Afd. Yes I do accept that I did vote numerous Afd seeing the content only and not going by the policies. But now I have gone through complete policies of WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:AFD, WP:AUTHOR as well. I am sorry for using hard words at you. Regret for that. I would expect this Afd to go in a healthy manner. Thanks for your polite correspondence. Dormantos (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kharkiv07 above. Easily notable per WP:BIO, strong coverage from multiple WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:24, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selia Elizabeth Jindal

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

Not notable and is known only as the daughter of Bobby Jindal. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete Minor daughter with no claim whatsoever of personal notability. We should probably speedy these. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a prank. Not even a stub really. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP requires respect for minors. This may be WP:TOOSOON of course. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Definitely too soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Seems speediable to me. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Snowball close. per all the above. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability = none, this probably should have been hit with a CSD. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Shaking my head that this made it through the speedy process (unsourced BLP of a clearly non-notable minor child of a politician). Carrite (talk) 06:04, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

California Writers Club

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

I'm not 100% convinced on this, but as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years now, I felt that if I couldn't establish notability, it should be taken to AfD. Pinging Rbifan and Orangemike. The info in the article suggested notability, especially the CWC week and the connection to Jack London. However, London's group doesn't seem to be really connected with the organisation today. Essentially, although it looks notable, I wasn't able to verify it. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The fact that Jack London was connected to this club is what actually made me not want to put this on a afd to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please take a look again. Cited sources were on the page, just not incorporated as inline cites. I don't think this is a WP:GNG issue, this looks like a cleanup issue. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Thanks to both the above commentators. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 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 Speedy Keep - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sinhagad

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

NILL sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a first source, found easily from a Google Books search. Was a WP:BEFORE check done for this nomination? Lack of references is a matter for article improvement (which can be prompted by adding an Unreferenced tag) rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article gives asource. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind it. The first step should ahve been to tag as unreferneced, not for AFD. However, it is only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ballads sing of the martyrdom of Tanaji Malusare, the use of a ghorpad (lizard) in this battle. The fort was called Kondana at the time of the battle and renamed Sinhagad, in honour of Tanaji after the battle. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pratapgarh

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

No sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The article has a list of 6 book sources, so the two word nomination is incorrect. In addition, a WP:BEFORE check would locate more. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Checkable / Verifiable sources. This makes edit warring to easy between contesting editors, therefore expending editors time when IP editors oppose each others interpretations. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article gives SIX sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these. They may not be Internet-accessible, but that does not mean they are not WP:RS. I know that they are not in-line referneces, but that is nmot a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- This is very Important Article and give very important information with numbers. This article must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahendra.Kadam20 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 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 Speedy Keep - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pavan Khind

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

There aren't enough sources to warrant inclusion of this article in an encyclopedia. Even JSTOR comes up empty handed FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article gives FIVE sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous Marathi sources would be available for this. The martyrdom of Baji Prabhu Deshpande in the battle is celebrated in Marathi folk songs and literature. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - Proceural close - "No sources" isn't a valid reason for deletion, Clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kolhapur

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

Lack of sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have occurred, ergo is probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. There seems to be some misapprehension that only online sources are valid, which is certainly not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article gives two sources. My guess is that reliable primary sources lie behind these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per invalid deletion rationale, "it's unsourced" is not a reason to delete a page about a notable subject, that's why we have WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 12:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean de Bronxelles

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

Fails notability for living persons. Quick gBooks and gNews search reveal no references mentioning the article's subject. Possible unsourced BLP, as the sources cited lead to dead links. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable evidence of notability, and I would say the same about the African Wildlife Defence Force (AWDF). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, WP:GOOGLETESTed this and found no evidence of notability. He does have a facebook page, however, implying that the subject exists. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pimley School

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

Article was prodded. I removed it preferring to bring it here for discussion. Things I have seen on other pages have led me to believe schools have more leeway when it comes to notability. I would rather it be discussed here and left to the community to decide if the article should be kept or deleted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a high school, and conventionally such schools are considered notable per WP:NHS. PamD 17:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The school is not really notable because the school is not in the news at all, the only page sources are the school website, and the most one can write about Pimley school would still be a stub. Since it could only be a stub, why not just create a page about Ermine (organization), which owns the school, and then put the date on Pimley school and the other Ermine schools there? Kges1901 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does something need to be in the news to be notable? The media does not cover every story out there for a variety of editorial reasons. On top of that, IMHO, schools are extremely important because your future as well as mine depends on an educating today's children. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with stubs, and in some cases there turns out to be sufficient content for a high school article to go beyond that. It might indeed be reasonable to write an article on the company that owns it. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their website indicates ages 4-15, which isn't a secondary school so far as I am aware. Redirect if possible. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite. Whether or not the school is a secondary school or not is irrelevant (BTW, it sounds like it is a combined elementary and secondary school since secondary schools include junior highs) since the text can always be edited to reflect that. What matters is whether or not the school itself is wiki worthy, regardless of the ages of the students. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They educate to O level, which is the school leaving qualification under the British system. It is therefore very definitely a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 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 22:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyBachat

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

Prod removed by the creator-comes across as a advertisement and not quite notable Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided include press releases, blogs and other obvious non-RS sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing reliable, third-party coverage, which would be required to evidence notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:32, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jian (singer)

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

The article clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO CarlosWagners (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisifies WP:MUSICBIO at least #9, most recently with second place in I Am a Singer (Chinese TV series) season 3, and a handful of other awards dating back to 2006. Do see zh:李健 (歌手) and search by the Chinese name for expansion, where you should find at least the sort of interview with a Chinese newspaper. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisifies WP:MUSICBIO #2, he have been active in music industry for at least a decade with multiple albums recorded and sold in Asian region. His list of albums can be found in the chinese version of this page - zh:李健 (歌手) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.182.78 (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC. zh:李健 (歌手) shows he has sufficient notability independent of the reality show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antigng (talk • contribs) 15:05, 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 keep. No argument for deletion was made by the nominator (just an expression of confusion that would have been better made on the talk page, if at all), so no point to relisting for further discussion. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq

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

What is the point of this article? Is it a disambiguation page? A list? Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is more or less a list. It can't be a disambiguation page because WP:DABCONCEPT (the terms are not independent, but subtopics of a general topic). It could be merged into 2003 invasion of Iraq, but that article is already enormous. bd2412 T 15:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Isis

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

Is this WP:NOTABLE? I couldn't establish that it was, so have brought it to AfD as it has been tagged for notability for over 3 years. Tagged by Edison. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mercer

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG; seems to be WP:1E. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Pinging those who have looked at it snotability before: Good Olfactory, Fourthords. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth a redirect to Prisoners of Hope. Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd go along with BLP1E. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Prisoners of Hope. But if a redirect is done, the bio information should be moved to Prisoners of Hope. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she does have a notability or Merge. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASIC. USA Today, CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has notability. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 05:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG is satisfied and the BLP-1E objection overcome by the fact that she has received coverage for her "Global Hope" NGO. See, for example, THIS in Christianity Today. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite -- as noted, she's notable for more than one event. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 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. SOFTDELETE without prejudice to the creation of a redirect j⚛e decker ^talk 02:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliburn

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG, it has some basic Ghits but not much. As for WP:NPLACE, it depends if this is considered a 'larger neighbourhood' or 'smaller suburb' and I couldn't be sure that this falls into the former. As this has been tagged for notability for 7 years and I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY, I've taken it to AfD. If found non-notable, could be worth a redirect to Livingston. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:35, 1 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 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0-41*

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

Could find no signs of notability for this movie in Malayalam. Be advised that I have removed the Plot Section as it was a copyright infringement. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-no info at all. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify notability at all. Dormantos (talk) 12:17, 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) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being TOO SOON. I found it on IMDB and found its official website and so gave the article a minor face lift but, as we do not have evidence of release and lack reliable sources, we have a failure of WP:NFF. Undeletion can be considered if or when inclusion guidelines are met. 08:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K Rend

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

No good independent refs that show notability outside its own professional niche. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability missing, searched for secondary sources didn't turn up anything. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author's request. Not a notable company. -- haminoon (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY 8/24/04

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

Totally non notable "instant live" recording. Fails all notability guidelines. Previous AfD failed for lack of participation, no statements or votes were given in support of keep. Safiel (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any sources to verify this - SimonP (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This recording does not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. "P.S." Another one along similar lines -- and that was included (by me) in the first AfD nomination -- is Rosemont Theatre, Chicago, 9/01/04. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Techyantran

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

Could find no signs of notability for the college event. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Chappell

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Pinging the person who applied the notability tag Nancy and the person who nominated it for speedy deletion, WWGB. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years. Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be enough here to evaluate. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Paucity of sourcing showing, fails GNG. I would do more digging, but if my inclusionist friend Billy Hathorn says it isn't there, that's good enough for me. Carrite (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Tidy-Harris

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get resolution. Tagged by Trident13.Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zebabist Nation of OOOG

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

Satirical candidates are frequent in elections, especially in constituencies with well-known figures running. Unlike The Pub Landlord (who is known for his routine more than political activity) and the Monster Raving Loonies (a regular and widespread party), this is a one-off. Non-elected candidates are rarely notable, and this seems to be a one-man act, i.e. an Independent candidate with an eccentric routine '''tAD''' (talk) 21:15, 30 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 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 sources, one of which is a tabloid. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN (as this appears to be a one-man band). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep--withdrawn by nominator and no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 11:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashya King case

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

No lasting significance. Generated acres of newsprint and sensational coverage while it lasted, but Wikipedia is not news. Although not titled as a BLP it sails on the cusp of BLP1E. The case resulted in no changes to UK legislation and the individual is likely to return to being a low-profile individual. Keri (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator New information emerging that proton beam therapy centres are opening in the UK for NHS patients. As this may be as a result of the King case, I'm withdrawing the nom at this stage. Keri (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfed

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has beent agged for notability for 7 years (by TenPoundHammer) so time it was resolved. Possibly worth a redirect to member who later became notable elsewhere, or the film soundtrack they wwere featured on. Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, outside the Allmusic bio I can find no reliable sources nor any other way that they seem to meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find reliable, secondary coverage providing signficant coverage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:22, 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 delete. SOFTEDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panther (development tool)

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

I can find no reliable sources about this tool and therefore no evidence of its notability. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probalign

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

Can't see any evidence of this tool's notability. This was the only source I could find with any depth that wasn't written by the creators. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though your linked source is in fact written by the creators - it's the paper they published describing the method. The paper has been cited 140 times, and the method was still producing reasonably competitive performance as recently as 2013-2014 benchmarks (described here and here). When other scientists discuss the method and compare it to their own work, that's perfectly good "secondary coverage". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A relatively well known method. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 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. No argument advanced of separate notability. Merge is counter-indicated for copyvio'd material. Closure is without prejudice to a redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Canterbury Tales: The Reeve Prologue

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

Dubious article about a prelude to The Canterbury Tales. I guess it would be notable if we could demonstrate that it exists, but the text here is copyvio from another non-free site and a dump of -- well, it's not a table of context, but there's no context given to describe what the list means. Almost speedy because of the copyvio, but not quite, so we're here at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does exist, insofar as the material being covered here is the introduction to Oswald the Reeve from the General Prologue, lines 589–624. However, I can't see any basis for dealing with the General Prologue in this manner. What is sometimes called the "Reeve's Prologue" is his sermonizing at the start of The Reeve's Tale. Add in the potential copyright issues with the prose here, and I don't see anything worth retaining. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So best to delete, or redirect to The Reeve's Tale, or merge to that same topic? OMG LOL IDK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:10, 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 10:23, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing keeping an article on what really isn't a separate section. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 1 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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner Twins

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

Plenty of press releases and primary sources, but only one arguably third-party independent reliable source, a small piece from the Orange County Register, a local paper where the subjects live. Articles (especially biographies) require multiple third-party reliable sources, and this subject has only one. The subject has been tagged since July, and has had these issues since 2012. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; an article needs more than press releases being churned out to make it a notable subject. Aoidh (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. All that hype and 29 Twitter followers. Seriously, I can find nothing beyond a couple of articles in the local Orange Country Register.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 1 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) 05:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valence Industries

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. John from Idegon (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - including searches for Uley graphite project and Strategic Energy Resources Limited turns up enough. Given the time frame involved (well over 100 years), a search of paper based sources should turn up more. At worst, can be merged with the Uley graphite project article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:18, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. A historic operation, an industry leader in its country, etc. = worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Not an entirely terrible piece either, as business articles go — for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 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 merge to Kylähullut. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keisarinleikkaus

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

Long time unreferenced, unotable album Wgolf (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 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, Nakon 05:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kylähullut. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 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 10:27, 1 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 List of tallest buildings in Worcester, Massachusetts. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Mark Tower

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

Building that has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Being the tallest building in a mid-size city does not make it inherently notable. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By deleting this page we would remove #1 from the List of tallest buildings in Worcester, Massachusetts which would make the existence of the list a bit illogical. What about redirect and merge Sky Mark Tower to List of tallest buildings in Worcester, Massachusetts? To me, it looks like a sensible solution. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:41, 17 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) 00:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of tallest buildings in Worcester, Massachusetts. Source searches are providing many mentions, but not finding significant coverage about this building. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 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 10:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Redirect seems like the right outcome. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A300 foot buildign in an american city is not worth working on here. . DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 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 keep. Nakon 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalal Bruchmann

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable musician. Areticle is of questionable truthfulness. Claims to have charted but that can not be verified at either billboard and allmusic. Akademia Music Award is not a major award, it is a pay for play award farm. Claim of rotation is not supported by any reliable sources. Suppleid source does not say rotation and there is no suggestion of national rotation. She lacks mulitple significant acting roles in notable productions. (Die Geschworene is uncredited, SOKO Donau is minor [27]. if Into the Darkness (film) ever sees the light of day then that may be one.) Current sourcing is terrible. iTunes, facebook, imdb, youtube, primary. No independent reliable sources. A seach found nothing good. (Note. Article is spam created by a series of corporate accounts from Secret Service Media.) duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This (pp. 8-11) looks like an acceptable source (Steirerin - a local Styrian women's magazine written in German). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her official website features this Wikipedia article (see Wikipedia - "Visit me on Wikipedia") so there might be a WP:COI issue. There are more articles about her in the US gossip/fashion media, see for example [28], [29], but I'm not sure if this is enough to meet WP:GNG. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup – Meets WP:BASIC per [30] (pp. 8-11), [31], [32], [33]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 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,

10:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Northamerica1000 and Vejvančický. The Kenton Magazine article, for example, provides substantial biographical coverage of the subject:
Austrian born singer and actress Dalal Bruchmann has exploded onto the dance music scene with the video for her hit single “Taste The Night”. With well over a million views on youtube alone, it’s apparent that Dalal is on the upward move.
Dalal’s entertainment career was no fluke. Born into a long line of talented artists, composers, and musicians, she was already a certified musical prodigy and performing artist by age 4. She learned to play both the violin and piano; composed her own scores at age 5, and at age 8 had already played with several acclaimed orchestras in Europe.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dalal Bruchmann to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:58, 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. Nakon 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DZST (defunct)

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

Non-notable college radio station. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 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 // 00:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is kind of a borderline case. WP:NMEDIA wants "a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." I added a note to say that the broadcast history was 1950–1969. I guess keep because the general practice seems to be keep college stations with broadcast licenses. See Category:College radio stations in the Philippines. The fact that it is now defunct wouldn't matter as such. I did add a note to DZRV – Radio Veritas to say that it took over the frequency formerly used by this station. Also, there is a proposal to merge this article with Tiger Radio, but they seem to be different stations operated at different times. The only thing they have in common is being operated by the same university. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Margin1522. The commonly held view at WP:WPRS is that all licensed stations (especially those which originate their own programming) are inherently notable. The fact this station is no longer on-air is irrelevant -- notability is not temporary. Levdr1lp / talk 12:18, 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,

09:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:13, 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 delete. Nakon 00:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Release Therapy

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

Non-notable product. Checking the sources, almost every one is either a press release or an ad. The exceptions are two academic papers which make no mention of the product, and as one was published in 1968 this is unsurprising. I couldn't find anything viable online. Bilby (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:MEDRS sources; WP:PROMO Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above CorporateM (Talk) 01:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smacks of commercial advertising. Sourcing is uninspiring, including a reference to "PR Web." Carrite (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned by wgolf. BakerStMD 00:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nom lacks sources and clearly Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:37, 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 speedily deleted by User:Just Chilling per CSD A7 (no credible indication of importance). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women for equality and rights

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any mention of this organization in third party sources. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:10, 1 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 14:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monet Monico

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. Has not had significant roles in multiple productions and consequently does not have a fan base or have made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Only appears to have had minor roles in TV series in which she has appeared. The article was previously deleted as a copyvio of http://moviespictures.org/biography/Monico,_Monet and this version still retains significant similarities to that source. AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, newly added intro proves the point: was a rising star until derailed by drug abuse. With minor roles leading to no notability, article focuses on her Dr. Phil appearance and drug addiction which makes the article more promotional in nature. Recent reference additions only solidify my opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've removed the Biography section, a copyvio from http://moviespictures.org/biography/Monico,_Monet, as rightly noted by AussieLegend. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had to delete this again, as it was restored.[34] In the process the article creator deleted {{BLP sources}} and {{lead missing}} without addressing the identified problems. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 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. Weakly kept, in my view, because consensus is roughly "it probably happened, so it's probably notable", which isn't very convincing, but there's nobody else advocating deletion, and the nomination isn't terribly convincing either. Sandstein 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sarsa

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

No sources, biased information, violates NPOV policy and is propaganda. Also, there is a lack of impartial/neutral information pertaining to this event in English. Xtremedood (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [No sources, biased information, violates NPOV policy and is propaganda. Also, there is a lack of impartial/neutral information pertaining to this event in English.]:

Comment The "battle of Sirhind" should be "Siege of Sirhind". As for battle of Sarsa, I found this source. Now whether there is enough information to write an article on either conflict is another issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me reading this article was rather discombobulating. No where near enough content to put the article in a constellation of understanding. If this battle was part of a war, mention it in that wars article. if it wasn't mention it in the history of the mentioned countries. I felt like I had so little to go on I wouldn't even know where to start researching this to help the article out. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep – When I started searching for sources about the "Battle of Sarsa" I was truly perplexed, since the only websites mentioning it seemed to link back to this Wikipedia article. Then I started searching for related terms, such as "Gobind Singh". (Oh look there's a Wiki article: Guru Gobind Singh.) It became clear that the river in question is more commonly spelled Sirsa. Parivar Vichora is apparently a site on this river, related to the Battle of Sirsa. Here's a mention. Here's a longer discussion from sikh-history.com. So I dunno, it seems like a pretty significant event, widely recognized as happening, at least within the Sikh tradition. Maybe the article looks like "propaganda" right now, with the spin currently given, but do you think the event didn't happen? Do you (Xtremedood) know of any good sources discussing this place and time which might have better information? groupuscule (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have found more information, however I believe at the current the information should be kept simple. I have made considerable changes to it, however the pages are prone to vandalism on a regular basis, which I think qualified editors should look out for. Xtremedood (talk) 02:33, 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,

07:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem to have occurred, ergo are probably notable. We can't expect as many sources for such battles as we would have for battles involving Western European or North American countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was tagged as a speedy deletion as something that was edited by a sockpuppet account, but I'm declining it because there have been edits from others (albeit mostly from the AfD nominator) and there's just enough of an assertion of notability here to where it'd probably be better for this to go through a full AfD since it's already in progress. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there's two people here who seem at least somewhat interested in keeping the article and (presumably) improving it to show notability. However at the same time there is still an impetus to prove notability for the battle since there have been many, many battles throughout history, some with names and some without. A battle occurring and receiving a name does not automatically mean that it's notable. It can make it easier to find sources, but it's pretty typical for historians (amateur or professional) to label battles in order to keep dates and facts straight. What we have here is a siege that is sourced by one source. It's by a reliable publisher but the book contains information about thousands of battles and isn't really the type of source that we'd keep on that basis alone since it contains many, many entries. This needs more sourcing to really prove that it was a notable event. Now this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement for deletion, just that right now based on the sources there really isn't a strong assertion that this battle would pass notability guidelines based on the single source. It is, however, enough to where I think it should continue through AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 67 Google Book results suggest something clearly happened. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 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 22:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TĀLĀ

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

According to Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles this is not notable. She has released only 2 EP's via independent label. Let's wait for a studio album. Stryn (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand there have been articles written about her in the telegraph, the Independent, buzzfeed and the Guardian. Those are "multiple, non-trivial, published works", I'd say.--Surfad (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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 // 00:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-tough call, she seems to fall under too soon at the moment. As for the sources, that is kind of expected though to be honest as newer artists will have more sources. For now a Weak delete. Wgolf (talk) 19:31, 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,

07:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples: [35], [36], [37]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets WP:BASIC but it's not good enough to have an article. --CarlosWagners (talk) 17:09, 1 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 22:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boom! Boom! (TV series)

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 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]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 19:26, 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,

07:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RTÉ Television. Wgolf (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? It was shown one month last decade on a network that has been around since the 1960s. No mention is made of it there and it is hard to see how any could be? --Greykit (talk) 20:14, 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 22:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quizone

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

Sourced only to the network. That link doesn't even work. No indication that it's even shown anymore or that it's notable. Greykit (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-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]

Delete - Can't find anything at all, Nothing on on GNews so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 05:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not blown away by the content by any means. but when I search the category "Category:Irish children's television programmes" It's not that much worse then the other articles there, This is why I think having Catagories instead of articles can be dangerous. If we had an article for Irish children's television programmes This show could have a paragraph in that article. as is, the only choice they have is to be a stub. given the state of the article as a hole I'd say hold off on deletion but a lot of articles in that category are pretty sparse and could use some help. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Even so, and referring to the other contents of that category, this is a particularly poorly sourced one which is rife with original research and asserts no notability, the website doesn't work anymore and it no longer appears to be shown. Aifric, for instance, has at least one award. Best Bitz from Back Den has two sources. Custer's Last Stand-up has a BAFTA. Dáithí Lacha's sources date from the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s and is the country's "first home-grown television cartoon star". The Morbegs has three sources. Pic Me is an award winner and globally distributed. Roy has a BAFTA. Quizone doesn't (yet?) compare. --Greykit (talk) 20:17, 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,

07:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy of Credit

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

I'm not finding enough reliable third-party coverage of this book to make me believer it's notable. There are various appearances and interviews by the article and some self-promotion, but I can't find reviews or commentary about the book itself. Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 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,

07:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this article should be deleted.Kbdavis07 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems not to have been reviewed by any major media. I'm willing to change my mind if such sources are found and added to the stub. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 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. No response from Hallows AG, editor appears to be on a break. Nakon 23:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternator Centre for Contemporary Art

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

Not notable. Nothing in the local press except as a location for art exhibits. Just about all the sources are from the Centre itself or from other non-Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources can be found. This is a classic art gallery/art centre/art space conundrum: there may be plenty of RS available, but they are about the exhibitions, not the gallery. I've had trouble with other artist-run centres, which technically are notable but cannot be verified as such for Wikipedia. Unless there are some RSs available that are about the gallery itself and are more than trivial, sadly this is a delete. freshacconci talk to me 20:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - exhibitions being covered in reliable sources is some indication of notability. As such, I would be inclined to keep if even one reliable source discussing the history (for example) of the centre existed. Sadly, I couldn't find any. Pinging @Hallows AG: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 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 (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Tanner

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NOTABILITY. Without beng able to see NYT aticles, it is unclear if they were significant mentions, or even if they were much about him rather than successful family. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can get it resolved now. Pinging Bradv who tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR, His books appear to the the leading non-academic books in his area of work: Thebook on Afganistan is held in over 1700 libraries; the book on the "Wars of the Bushes" has been translated into three languages. I've added library holdignsand reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - my error Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted CSD A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance, following deletion of the artist's page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Indictment

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

Unotable rap album (considering the artist is also under a afd figured I put this up) Wgolf (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality (rapper). Non-notable all-around; album, artist, record label. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 1 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 23:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WealthForge

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

No indication of notability . Refs are one local business journal, and one press release DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references. Real company with local recognition and an increasing presence in the crowdfunding industry. Compared to other entries related to crowdfunding, this page has more notability. This also relates to the JOBS Act and financial technology. Talbot0893 ( talk ) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes , there are more references. I've read them. Most are references to show specific companies use the services--but these amount to incidental mentions of WealthForge, not substantial references, and do not prove market share; if you can prove it is the most important firm in the industry, that would show notability. You've added an academic reference--but it just includes the company name in a list of 27 companies in the field, without discussing it at all. (The list does show that 17 of those companies entered the business before this one.)

You've kept in such promotional material as "Mat and Fred developed technological solutions, leveraging the web to create new efficiencies and scale for private equity markets. These technologies form the foundation of WealthForge's services, and fit the larger trend of financial services becoming web-based" This says nothing specific, and only a promotional web site would refer to the founders by their first names to give an informal touch--not an encyclopedia.

" local recognition and an increasing presence": "local" is a reason against notability, and increasing presence translates as not yet notable

The JOBS act and financial technology are important, but I don't see how that shows this specific firm is.

on my talk page, you write", Wikipedia already has pages for many similar companies" Yes, we have pages for other crowd funding companies. If they're as promotional as this and prove as little, we need to get rid of them, not add to their number. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response You bring up good points. I have tried to keep promotional language to a minimum, but more of it can and should be edited out. I am not associated with the company, nor am I paid or benefiting in any way from this article. I live in Richmond where the company is headquartered and I am a student at the University of Richmond, where the two founders attended school. However, I do not know them and I am not trying to promote the company in this article. Some of the information comes from promotional materials, and I actually cut out much of the promotional language – more needs to be edited out, though. In creating this article I am interested in expanding Wikipedia's coverage of the crowdfunding industry, which I think is very important. For example, I find it very interesting that someone can invest in lawsuits through Lexshares, a client of WealthForge.

While WealthForge is not the most important firm in the industry, it is well-known in crowdfunding nationwide, its technology is used by other crowdfunding companies, and its financial services are used by many more. News coverage is a little hard to come by not because it lacks notability, but because of the nature of its work. This is also why some sources mention the company only tangentially. Much of its work is done behind the scenes between companies, but it provides the necessary services for crowdfunding. If we delete WealthForge, Wikipedia would lack a clear explanation of how the crowdfunding industry works, because while we might have crowdfunding websites present on Wikipedia, the company that allows many to actually invest – Wealthforge – would be absent.

Crowdfunding is not done through the more traditional financial institutions, instead, new, small companies like WealthForge provide specialized services for crowdfunding clients. Moreover, while I do think many articles about crowdfunding sites on Wikipedia lack quality, I do not think they should be deleted. If we delete these sites, we lose significant coverage of the crowdfunding industry, who the actors are, and how it works. Since it is also a growing industry, these pages will probably develop much more in the coming years – including WealthForge's page. I should also mention that WealthForge can act as an interesting case in crowdfunding startups, since it started merely as a crowdfunding platform called Fundroom.com, but then transitioned to provide services to the rest of the industry.

This is not my first time editing an article on Wikipedia, but you obviously know much more than me when it comes to the rules and principles of the site, so I look forward to your response and I hope I have been able to change your mind about this page a little bit. Please know that I am not trying to vandalize, nor promote any organization, I am simply aware of the company, found it interesting, and hoped I might add something about. I will certainly try to be more careful about notability in the future, though. When I created the page I did not have it fully planned out, and thought there would be more sources. Then, I scrambled to add things so it would not get deleted. Nevertheless, I do not think we should delete this page. I think it has something to offer, especially if we improve it. Talbot0893 ( talk ) 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Delete The article is not moving toward meeting Wikipedia's standards with the just added material and cites.

Example: the material supported by the cites to PRNewswire, characterized by its website with Amplify Take your release beyond the basics for better results.
Example: the Reuters cite has this disclaimer at the head Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Example: the HuffingtonPost cite has this mention of WealthForge such as WealthForge.
Example: the WSJ cite may speak to the notability of a client of WealthForge, but is only a passing mention of WealthForge.

These cite failures, in addition to the pervasive promotional tone and PRspeak, indicate, to me, an article aimed a potential client. — Neonorange (talk) 23:49, 17 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 // 01:02, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sources I saw on the page were press releases - and any company can put those out, really. The article is, indeed, written in a promotional tone, and I'm not convinced that we can get around this problem. I should mention that notability is not necessarily conveyed with a few brief mentions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails to meet Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. the only substantial discussion that is independent (and the press releases and the U Richmond sources are not independent) is the local newspaper, and that kind of regional notability is not enough for NOTABILITY. the other sources are just passing mentions. not substantial. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Kadar Khatri

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

Not enough coverage to be notable PhantomTech (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; either simply not notable, or TOOSOON. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 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 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Force

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

Ghits were overwhelmingly for other things called Sky Force, I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. An orphaned page with no good redirect target. Tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before: Fabrictramp tagged it for notability, Dgebel removed prod. Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I couldn't find anything to establish notability either. ~EdGl! 02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poetnial keep -- As I read the article this is (or was) a para-church youth organisation. Even if its merger has led to it being defunct, it may have eben notable once; if so, it should remain notable. I am taking the article at face value. If it could be demonstrated that it was only the program of one local church (or a handful), my view would be different. If my reading of the article that the organisation is effectively defunct, and was before the days of the Internet, the lack of Ghits is unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the one trying to prove notability? I double-checked Sky Force's website and they don't have a list of local chapters, so there's no telling if it was at 12 or 12,000 churches. ~EdGl! 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not exactly, unsourced articles don't go to AFD, only articles that you have attempted ot find sources for, and failed. I'm gonna take a good faith swing at sourcing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. I did find a self published book by a father-son team of ministers in Muskoka, claiming to have founded this children's evangelical ministry. But neither, they, nor their church, nor Sky Force itself seem to have any independent sourcing or notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 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 no consensus. czar ⨹ 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Progressive Association

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG. No independent sources nor even assertion of notability; despite which speedy deletion was declined. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disgusting example of tag bombing, I'll be back to fix that tomorrow when I have time to edit. This organization has a NAMED ARCHIVAL COLLECTION at Northeastern University in Boston, 12 linear feet, which is pretty big. And yes, the historical abstract attached to that collection is significant published independently-produced content counting towards GNG. I have to go to work, more latter. This topic is going to be an easy GNG pass, I think. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS 2014 piece from the Boston Globe deals substantially with one of the activities of the CPA and counts towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment Carrite makes a pretty compelling case to keep on the face of it, but I've relisted for a week just in case anyone has any other comments to make on this. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Morris, it's been a week and I think some of the templates (e.g. delete) can be removed. -Reagle (talk) 13:42, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Miller

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

After looking at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, I think this is a borderline case, but I couldn't quite establish that he meets the criteria through reliable sources. There were lots of websites which mention him, many using the same wording as his personal website. He seems to be successful within his field, and I considered whether he might meet WP:MUSICBIO #1, but I'm not sure it's quite there. As this has been tagged for notability for seven years, I thought it best to bring it to AfD now and resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 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 // 00:40, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:38, 1 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 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angella Katatumba

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

Did a search and cannot find any reference to albums produced, live tours or awards. The only article is related to her being a judge on a singing competition. The page reads more like a CV and has a promotional tinge. Karst (talk) 14:47, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 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 // 00:27, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google news search finds coverage reaching WP:BASIC. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:05, 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 delete. Nakon 03:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xvi (text editor)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS or trivial and thus unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Though not by itself a reason to delete, I note that the author of the article clearly has a WP:COI. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- I am unaware of any significant coverage such as required by the notability guideline. The sparse existing non-trivial (more than mentioning its existence) coverage overlooked by the author of the topic is dismissive as well TEDickey (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's any significant coverage of this text editor anywhere obvious. It's interesting how many irrelevant hits you can get for "xvi" "text editor" "stevie". I don't know how people can possibly tie together Stevie Ray Vaugn, Pope Benedict XVI, and text editors, but at least one person managed to do so. Anyway, it's already briefly described at Vi, so I don't think a merge is necessary. Given the few incoming links from other pages and the disambiguation, I don't think a redirect would be very helpful. However, it could be redirected to Vi#Contemporary derivatives and clones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A martinwguy at GitHub and a User:Martinwguy2 here is sub-optimal, the solution suggested by NinjaRobotPirate makes sense, let's keep a redirect. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:22, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly not an article. Optionally redirect, but its not well mown enough to be needed. DGG ( talk ) 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 no consensus. Nakon 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleversafe

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

This page contains advertising content related to a small, privately held company. The company is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia page, nor is the PR-style article a neutral, non-biased description of the company. As this entry exists purely to promote the company, it should be deleted Kdb150 (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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 // 00:08, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real evidence of notability Al pst al refs are local press releases. The WSJ award is not a first place, but a minor award in category. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stub: I noticed it won the WSJ Innovation award[44], which unlike the rest of the award spam is actually a significant award. Did a quick Google News search[45] and there are plenty of sources. The current article is an advert, so suggest stubbing and watchlisting. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A WP:CORPDEPTH pass. Sources include [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Of note is that the article was stubbified on 8 April 2015‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 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. Nakon 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Grad

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

None of the third party sources do more than mention her--I suspected this from their titles, but I confirmed by reading the sources . DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources range from self-published,[53][54] to user-generated,[55] to passing references,[56][57][58][59]. Subject won two awards from her theater department in college,[60][61] but neither award seems "well-known and significant" enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. Most coverage outside article is limited to her role on Adam Carolla's podcast, but again, passing mentions only. Only this interview would seem to help establish notability, but a single source is not sufficient. Levdr1lp / talk 14:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:IMPORTANCE. Working menial jobs in the Los Angeles entertainment industry does not make a person notable. 20:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SM the Performance

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC; article has zero secondary reliable sources. This is a group created by SM Entertainment and composed of members of existing SM Entertainment groups, whose purpose was to perform one time at one of Korea's big year-end music festivals. I can't really see that a standalone article is useful for this one-off event group, as there is no biographical information to include (all members are discussed elsewhere, in their own or group's article), no discussion of how the group formed (it was done by a big company for one event), nothing to say about their musical style (it was one song, a cover of an existing song by Zedd), no controversy or critical response. There's literally nothing to say about this "group" other than "here are the members and they performed this song one time." The year-end music festival at which they performed frequently have many "special groups" like this one perform, and none of them have Wikipedia articles; SM Entertainment just gave this one a name so an SM fanatic made an article for them. If not already there, it might be worth a mention in each participant's article and/or the SM Town article, but I think just typing it into those articles would be preferable that trying to merge or something official like that. since this article has no RS anyway. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is very similar to Younique Unit (another temporary project group). There is no reason for this to have an article. Random86 (talk) 06:49, 1 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 speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Management: Tips From the Foxhole

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

Pure personal opinion, not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:SOAPBOX explain why this article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I couldn't figure out which CSD criterion this meets, but it may qualify for speedy deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an exact copy of a previous article that was speedy deleted per A7. I've tagged it. However I'm not entirely certain that A7 ought to apply as it deals with things rather than ideas. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the essay has some interesting advice it isn't encyclopedic, the editor who added it clearly has a head for management and could likely do a lot of good for wikipedia, but the essay should not be an article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like Animalparty, I wanted to find a Speedy Deletion justification for this, but it did not seem to fit any category. But it is a personal essay of no particular note, which does not belong in Wikipedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a speedy deletion category for personal essays like this (though I was tempted to delete it under the 'uncontroversial housekeeping' criterion). It obviously isn't an encyclopaedia article, and so is out of scope. This might be accepted by Wikihow. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination, and as per points raised by the other users in the preceding discussion. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. It's an essay/OR. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:NOTHOWTO. Esquivalience ^t 01:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Mountain Province Bus Accident

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

This article appears to fail WP:EVENT. The only notability I can see in this article are that some famous people died in the crash, and there was a mural built after the accident in memory. These people might be notable, but I believe this event would also fail WP:NOTINHERITED. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Tado's article. Let's be honest, most of the coverage for the incident was regarding him. Sure the bus company involved was suspended for several months, but that doesn't necessarily establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per the sources mentioned below. However, some info could still be added to expand Tado's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deadliest bus crash in the Philippines in 2014.1 Event received significant coverage and in fact continues to get media coverage. 1, 2, 3, 4.--RioHondo (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article must be expanded to focus more on the background of the accident and investigation. Also I propose renaming the article to 2014 Bontoc bus accident to be more specific.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs expanding but notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the press coverage may in good part been because of the celebrity, but the event as a whole is significant quite apart from him. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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 00:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human (Star Trek)

AfDs for this article:

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

(This is a serious nomination, not an April Fools one.) This is a completely unsourced article and nothing more than a collection of Star Trek trivia. It belongs on Memory Alpha, not here. There have been two prior AFDs. The most recent (in 2011) was from a sock puppet and so the nomination wasn't especially considered. The first AFD (7 years ago) said let's clean it up. Almost nothing has changed in the article in the seven years since then - it continues to be an unsourced list of trivia. B (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the massive lack of WP:V. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 04:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm completely unsure what would even go in this article that wouldn't normally go in the United Federation of Planets article. The only exceptions seem to be trivia, which isn't something that would warrant an article. Miyagawa (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 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 00:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Humble

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Hasn't played in a fully professional league or at international level. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:02, 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 00:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pontillas

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

Rather obscure fictional character. Granted this guy is a character from novels over 100 years ago. But not sure just how notable he is. Now maybe userfy be nice on this. But overall not sure if this should stay on wiki or not. (Though it does sound interesting I will admit) Wgolf (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait just noticed something the creator of the article has THE SAME name as this guy. No author for the book...only thing I can find on Google is wiki mirrors....is this a hoax??? Wgolf (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-looking this over, this seems to be a huge never caught hoax! Wgolf (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good find. Per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Possible_one_from_2008-Daniel_Pontillas, it is a hoax based on Arsène Lupin.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as hoax article. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Definite hoax. Google reports No results found for "Daniel Pontillas" -Wikipedia prior to 2011.[62] User:Mikuu_achi is a clear sock of User:Daniel_Pontillas. Neither account has edited outside the Daniel Pontillas article. At one point he even inserted an (off-site-hosted) photo of himself into the article. He also changed the name of the "leading lady", presumably to match his change in girlfriend. I'll place a hoax user-warning template on both account talk pages, although neither account has edited in over 4 years. Alsee (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that got me first was when I saw the words Sherlock and was thinking "that is odd"....Of course it be obvious if we saw something like "Man who won 2 Oscars, a noble peace prize, 3 Olympic gold medals, 5 Grammys...." (Unless if they were the worlds most busiest and amazing person ever) or "The long lost unknown president of the US" (Okay that is pushing it). Wgolf (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 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 Withdrawn. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1692 Subbotina

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

Non-notable main-belt asteroid. Only reference is to a database list, with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NASTRO but may be worth a redirect to Asteroid belt -War wizard90 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all similar and have all been tagged for notability since 2012: Nomination withdrwan per my comments below, apparently this is more controversial than I originally thought, honestly thought it would be uncontroversial or I wouldn't have attempted the bundle. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep all (redirect all to list) per extensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST which we've discussed for years, these get merged and redirected, not deleted. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to list e.g. List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per above, Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I'm confused here. Usually if you redirect items to a list, that list doesn't have links to the items in question. They are unlinked. The list you mentioned is a list of links to things like the asteroids on this delete list. It would be a circular redirect. Such as the item on this delete proposal 1747 Wright. We would either delete every individual article on the list you mentioned (but keep the list) or keep all the individual articles and keep this list page you mentioned and add these new ones to the list. Simply saying redirect to list doesn't really solve anything. There appear to be over 217,000 of these asteroids/minor planets. The first 10,000 pretty much have an individual article for each and every one. Randomly picking a few here for deletion is ridiculous! You'd still have over 9,900 to go. Personally I think an article for all these is trivial and should go. I would simply keep the list (with unlinked asteroids) but include in the table next to each asteroid an external link to its JPL Small-Body Database number. If someone is truly interested in asteroid "4997 Ksana" they would be a click away from the jpl website info. So it's keep for me unless we discuss ALL the asteroids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar ones should be redirected as well, and the fact that they exist does not mean that these should as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which explains that this is not a valid argument. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent. I agree with Fyunck(click), either keep these or also delete similar mini-stubs, but don't just randomly pick a few of them. --JorisvS (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These weren't picked randomly, they were all part of the hidden category of pages tagged for notability. If the other articles had been on that list I would have included them as well. For the record I had about 5 more articles on this list that I had to remove because less than 24 hours after I had put together the list, those 5 articles had been nominated individually by another editor, or had been redirected. Obviously there is a bunch of these articles we need to deal with, and it does seem silly to deal with them all separately. I was just trying to cleanup some notability tags though, I didn't realize how big of an issue this was. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NASTRO. -- 120.17.83.176 (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually that would be a reason not to keep it, just saying per WP:NASTRO doesn't mean anything, what part of NASTRO supports this keep !vote? -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: First, WP:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Dealing_with_minor_planets recommends redirection rather than deletion, so that an AfD nomination runs directly against WP:NASTRO policy to begin with. Second, such redirection should only occur if a good-faith search has failed to locate supporting references. For at least some of these asteroids, reliable sources do exist (I haven't checked them all, and you obviously have not), and so redirection is not appropriate either. Rather, they should stay as stubs until they can be expanded. Essentially, I agree with Graeme Bartlett below. To pick just one example, 1747 Wright has published information on its orbital characteristics, albedo, lightcurve, spectrum, surface mineralogy, and other attributes. There is also an image and a substantial amount of infobox data already in the article, which would be lost if the article was redirected. Clearly, there is enough material to expand at least that one to a decent article size, and ditto for all the others I've checked. It's also WP:Astro practice to keep the articles on low-numbered asteroids, precisely because they've almost all been known long enough to accumulate a fair bit of literature. I must say, I consider this particular mass nomination extremely disruptive, and in my opinion the nom deserves a trout. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does recommend redirection, and once I realized that the consensus on these was to redirect I added the bit about a possible redirect to the nomination, and have said in my other comments that a redirect would be appropriate. Unfortunately, I had already nominated it, once I realized what the consensus had been, but have no prejudice against redirecting these. Secondly, I am not a subject matter expert, nor do I claim to be, there are editors at this AfD that obviously have a lot better understanding of it then I do (such as yourself) and are able to find sources easier than I could (and thank you for providing sources to back up your claims, rather than just announcing their existence). The checks I did found some info, but not enough to warrant an article, that third link you provided clearly has enough to support an article, I didn't find anything that extensive. I still don't appreciate some of the bad faith comments made about the nomination. That being said, your argument is enough to convince me that this nomination was made haphazardly and I probably should have contacted some folks at the astronomy wikiprojects, so I will withdraw the nomination. It was not intended to be "extremely disruptive" and anyone familiar with my editing history would know that. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the first one I looked at even had an image. So these have obviously been researched heavily, as you can also tell from the low numbers. So without checking, and I am sure the nominator did not check every one either, I recommend keeping every one of them. If they are nominated for deletion after the nominator has done a literature search for that one then they can be considered individually. Until then keep the lot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It even had an image??? How is that a valid argument for keeping it? In what world does having a picture of something automatically mean it's been "researched heavily?" You are just making assumptions. You are also assuming (in bad faith) that I didn't do any literature search before nominating these articles. Then you say that I should do a literature search on "that one" but don't even tell us what "that one" is. If your convinced that it's been "heavily researched" then why not spend 5 seconds typing it into Google to prove that statement? I would check "that one" out now, but unfortunately I'm not sure what "that one" is. Based on previous discussions it seems the consensus is to redirect these articles, not keep them outright as 65.94.43.89 pointed out above. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - these all fall within the context of NASTRO's section on dealing with minor planets. Why this particular set for AfD? I don't know. I think some at WP:Astro have argued for keeping dedicated articles for the asteroids with numbers up to 5000 or 10,000 or something, and I'm ok with that as a matter of practice. However, since someone has brought it up here, let's go with the policy. WP:NASTRO was initiated, originally, in response to an unusual amount of article creation for high-numbered asteroids. In the case of this set, redirecting does no harm, and if/when any particular rocks among them are studied beyond basic parameters, then an individual article can be made. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't arbitrarily pick these pages, I picked them because they had the notability tag placed on them, no prejudice against adding others to the list that are the same. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I should have realized that the notability tag is pasted on a large number of the asteroid stubs...perhaps even placed by me in some cases! It's not really controversial to take a critical eye towards the asteroid stubs, and I think this was a good faith attempt at dealing with the ones you found with a notability tag. As you've found, though, the community currently prefers to redirect existing minor planet stubs rather than delete them outright - a pyrrhic victory for inclusionists! ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the corresponding minor planet lists as detailed in WP:NASTRO. Those stating keep may want to reread the guideline, which states that an object must have significant coverage to be retained. In the case of these minor planets, I'm not seeing any significant coverage (and no, an image most certainly does not count). StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdon Atangana

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

Non-notable academic. Atangana claims a fairly high impact factor by having his papers frequently cited, but an examination of the citations shows that they are largely him or his co-authors citing his own papers. There is no indication that many other authors have cited his work. Atangana publishes exclusively in journals published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation, an open-acces, pay-to-publish organization that has been put under watch by the Beall list for predatory publishing practices. The conferences listed cannot be found except as mentioned in Atangana's papers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atangana is a young researcher that has published 67 papers in his field of expertise in less than 3 years. His research paper appears in top journal like "Vibration and Control", "Computational Physic", "Journal of hydrological processes", "Communication in nonlinear science and numerical simulation" "Neural computing and applications" and others this journals are not open access and in addition, I will like to point out the fact that, almost all the journals in Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and other have open access option does that means they are not good? The conferences list exist and are well-known — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboctara (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment No, the claim is not that all open access journals are of poor quality. But Hindawi's journals have been called to task by Jeffrey Beall, with specific note that several of their journals have been delisted from Thomson Reuters' Impact Factor listing, some more than once. (See [63]). Also, Atananga's practice of citing his own papers artificially boosts his own citation count within Google Scholar (a poor, but often used measure of an academic's impact). The fact is, there just does not appear to be the necessary indication that Atananga is a person who has had a deep impact on his field of study. Quantity is not the same as quality. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has had some of his work published in peer reviewed publications that are respected. He is a leading academic mathematician in Camerron.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "...some work published" isn't really the criterion defined by WP:ACADEMIC. And we have little to evidence that he is a leading mathematician in Cameroon. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WoS confirms the actual lack of impact of this subject's work. The citation count list is 31, 18, 13, 8, 8, 6 etc, but most of these are him citing himself. For example, of the 31 cites for the highest paper, 22 are his own. For the second paper, 13 of the 18 cites are his own, etc. This is hardly representative of a "leading mathematician". Agricola44 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Even with self-citations, his h-index is 10, which isn't enough for WP:PROF. Nor does he have the kind of senior position that would satisfy WP:PROF. He gets zero mentions on the Cameroonian web. In the last few years there have been papers applying mathematical techniques to e.g. African diseases. This may make him notable eventually, but so far not yet. -- 120.17.0.71 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hindawi, Naturalspublishing, and Omicsonline are all dubious-quality publishers. Skipping them and counting only the journals from reputable publishers (in this case Springer and Elsevier) in a Google scholar search, we have citation counts 30, 16, 10, 6, 2, 2, 1. (Surprisingly close to the WOS numbers.) Eliminating the self-citations makes the citation record look even worse: 10, 5, 8, 1, etc. I don't want to conclude from this that he is *not* notable: mathematics is a low-citation field and it's possible for important work to be poorly cited. But certainly this means that the publication and citation record by itself provides no evidence of passing WP:PROF#C1. And what else is there? Editorship (not editor-in-chief) of some journals, and a postdoctoral fellowship, neither of which is sufficient for notability. Being a Cameroonian mathematician, maybe, since that is an unusual combination, but we would at least need sources (such as magazine profiles of the subject) saying so, and we don't have even that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not even close of any of the WP:PROF criteria. I do not see how being Cameroonian makes up for any kind of notability; even if he was the only mathematician in Cameroon but got nothing published on him in GNG style, PROF ought to apply in full force. Tigraan (talk) 09:58, 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 // stole my cup // and beans // 01:58, 1 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 consensus is that the company lacks sufficient coverage in independent sources to satisfy the GNG. Deor (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orgenetics

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

No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources provided in teh article or found in my searches. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @EoRdE6: who accepted this at AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GNG - it simply doesn't seem notable. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Hello, I was the original author of the article. I of course vote for Keep. I wrote the following comment (sic) to DGG's nomination to delete the article, and I think it applies here as well:

I mostly disagree with this nomination as I still think the Wiki article I wrote is factual and non-biased, and represents an article on a company with all the available info. That includes the bit about the humanitarian mission. It's not a praise of the firm. It's a fact drawn from the firm's website. Would you rather have articles that only selectively mention a firm's activities? (FYI, many of the Wikipedia articles on firms (including some Fortune 500 corporations) mention their humanitarian missions as factual statements with references only to the firm's website, and nothing more... So Wikipedia should really try to inspect those as well with the idea of fairness).

As for "notable," the current definition Wikipedia is using is rather incapable, and it's very unfortunate. There are many "notable" and significant firms in the world economies that might not have third party biographies or summaries simply because they're not well known to consumers or masses, or haven't received any attention in the media. That doesn't mean they have no notability or aren't significant in their niche. This particular firm, Orgenetics, makes Organic vitamins from plants. I have found no other company in the nutraceutical industry that is capable of that. In my opinion, this is notable. However, as this particular firm is a raw material supplier, I doubt consumers and mass media would know about this firm. Along the same idea, I doubt this firm would have any substantial third party media coverage due to its niche as a raw material manufacturer and supplier.

Anyways, it seems I fundamentally disagree with this opinion and Wikipedia's policies, so this would all be a moot point until any of it changed. Yours truly, HealthTake (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — HealthTake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I vote keep for now, i agree it certainly is on the lower sides of notable, but if 3rd party verifiable resources can be drummed up I think it could be a fine article. if not we can delete it later not a big deal. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I know what I probably should vote here, I'm just going to leave a comment. After scouring the internet all I can find is this award they received which could be worked in to the article, and multitudes of mentions in Natural Products Insider which could be a good thing, or a business deal of some form. Thank you Thaddeus B for pinging me too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "author" (ahem) throws WP:OTHERSTUFF in the way, claims facts from the company's website (cough), and is admitting that the article violates policies but it should not matter because it is a niche product. Well, indeed, we rarely apply WP:GNG to companies because of that very reason (most companies have a specific audience) but I still fail to see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Tigraan (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tigraan (talk), I'm not claiming that the Wiki policies don't matter because this company has a niche. Please reread what I wrote before misconstruing my statements. It is my opinion that Wikipedia's "notable" policy is incapable, and I gave the aforementioned reasons. I never once mentioned that it shouldn't apply to this article, again, if you read what I wrote. Along the same lines, I did take facts from the company's website, but the references in the article clearly mention that. (Isn't that the point of references anyway?) HealthTake (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my misunderstandings then, but I fail to see how the following can be compatible:

WP policies matter, and should apply to the article (even if they are "incapable");
The article fails to follow the policies ("I doubt this firm would have any substantial third party media coverage (...)");
The article should be kept (that's what a 'keep' !vote means).

By the way, the point of references is not only to point to the company's website. A company's website is considered a reliable source for things like the name of board members, or the postal address, and barring specific circumstances it is usually a good addition to the references. I am not disputing the addition of the company's website; I dispute its use as the sole source of content for their actions, or for notability, as for instance the claim that they have an "emphasis on fair business practices" (putting quotes to indicate it is their own claim does not change the problem). Tigraan (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company, article is sourced to company resources or (imho) unreliable sources. 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete I'm afraid. I couldn't find any third party sources. The award article posted above by Eord is really kind of trivial coverage from a notability perspective. The results from Natural Products Insider appear because Orgenetics sponsors that website and shows up in a sponsors sidebar. HealthTake, you cannot avoid deletion by expressing fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's consensus rules about what's notable. The idea is that if this were such an important company then someone would have written some impartial, detailed article about them. I hope you are not frustrated by this experience; I would like to see nothing more than you taking our advice on-board and contributing many non-promotional articles about notable companies to Wikipedia! AgnosticAphid talk 23:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources actually about this company - mostly press releases and puff. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I Googled for a while and couldn't find any independent Reliable Sources. The award noted above is an Honorable Mention, of an award for which I failed to find independent Reliable Source coverage. Comment to HealthTake: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or Facebook-type site for self-publishing. The criteria for encyclopedia inclusion is that a subject must have significant independent coverage in books, news, or other similar sources. Most businesses do not belong in an encyclopedia. Sorry. Alsee (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent coverage. This is Wikipedia's criterion for whether or not the subject qualifies for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. We call it "notability" which is not really a good term, because of course all business owners think their company is "notable"; maybe "coverage" would be a better name for it. But call it what you like, that is the requirement. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq Hua Awara

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

Fail's notability, beyond the supplied IMDB links and a Facwbook page I can't seem to find anything online that would point to this being notable. LenTheWhiteCat 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 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 // stole my cup // and beans // 01:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-per nom. Wgolf (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated; fails notability ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:27, 1 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) 07:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Extreme Kayak Fishing

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

promotional spam for a non-notable company Epipelagic (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having fished this event for many years I would highly disagree on your comment of Extreme Kayak Fishing Inc. this green company is a well known event in the city of Pompano Beach Florida which also sponsors this tournament. This organization has donated thousands of dollars to the Broward Children's Center in the city of Pompano Beach in efforts to give back to the community. It is very simple to check the status of this well organized and accomplished company having been around for over four years. Before making accusations I would highly recommend you do your research before stating false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.250.93 (talk)— Ryand1024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Joseph Hector am the owner of Extreme Kayak Fishing Tournament Inc. Based on what evidence am I being accused of having a promotional spam non- notable company. My company is well known in the city of Pompano Beach Fl. We attract anglers from all over the world for our tournaments. These anglers help generate money for the city through the hotel industry and food service industry, which increases tax revenue for the city of Pompano Beach. What information do you need from me to negate the accusations that have been placed against Extreme Kayak Fishing Tournament Inc. Please advise me, as I want to resolve this issue immediately.

Thank you Joseph Hector — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekft (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph. The intention is not to insult you or your company. On Wikipedia the term "notable" is used somewhat technically as a term which must conform to these guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability. Your company doesn't. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This article is Spam, and smells like spam--it doesn't even smell like bad fish. The article was created by an editor whose ONLY contributions have been to this article. The other 3 primary editors' contributions have been exclusively or predominantly to this article. The proprietor of the business comments and asks that it not be deleted. Overwhelming evidence of Spam. The ostensibly independent references are 2 fishing websites (don't know their reputation) and 2 local news outlets. Not sufficient notability. The proprietor also put 2 pictures of himself in the article--obviously about publicity. Tapered (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In categories we are listed as a fishing tournament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fishing_tournaments How is our article different than all the other fishing tournaments? We have 14 references backing our article including the florida sport fishing magazine. Please advise me on what I have to do in order to keep this article from being deleted? Joesph Hector

Well you have made a start by trimming some of the more excessive spam and self promotion. Looking at the category list, there are tournaments of questionable notability there that should perhaps be deleted also. The references you mention, now 12 of them, are mostly to publications that are not notable, that do not, for example, have a Wikipedia entry. The Kayak Fish Mag is a local state magazine. The Sun Sentinel is notable, but it does not contain an in-depth report and again is a local state publication. Another reference is only to a press release. Can you find better sources, perhaps to books from reputable publishers, or perhaps to recognized magazines that are international, or at least national? If you can't then the article is not really ready for Wikipedia. It might be ready in a few years time, and then you could try again. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check our references. We have added several in depth Sun Sentinel articles about Extreme Kayak Fishing Tournament. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/outdoors/fl-wednesday-fishing-report-0820-20140819-story.html http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/pompano-beach/fl-cnsp-digestbr-0907-20140908-story.html http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-08-20/sports/fl-extreme-kayak-tournament-0821-20110820_1_kayak-fishing-fishing-rod-gift-card http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-04-29/sports/fl-wednesday-fishing-report-0430-20140429_1_brian-nelli-anglers-hobie-kayak

We have also added reputable sources from the , "WPTV-TV", "The Palm Beach Post" and "Guy Harvey". Each of sources have their own wikipedia articles. With these sources Extreme Kayak Fishing article should be Notable. http://www.wptv.com/sports/recreation-sports/a-local-kayaker-fights-to-reel-in-a-white-marlin-during-a-fishing-tournament-in-the-bahamas http://guyharveyoutpostnews.com/2014/08/25/extreme-kayak-fishings-summer-slam-results-in-a-heavy-weight-bout/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekft (talk • contribs) 03:21, 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 // stole my cup // and beans // 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By providing new references that our listed in Extreme kayak fishing article reference page, why is this page still up for deletion? Please advise me if there is anything more that needs to be addressed in order to make this article notable for Wikipedia. Thank you Joseph Hector — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekft (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The positive commenters on this page are 1)the proprietor of the event, 2) a major contributor to the article whose username is an acronym of the event, 3)98.249.250.93, the original author of the article. These facts strongly indicate this article was begun as promotion, and is still promotion. Tapered (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is still a great deal of unsourced content (fails WP:OR and WP:VERIFY; there are still 4 or 5 blog sources (fails WP:SPS) and press releases (fails WP:INDY) - outside of that, it is a local paper (the Sun Sentinel) or Palm Beach Post (which is a paragraph). and it is all kind of news-y, and WP is WP:NOTNEWS. This kind of regional reporting doesn't bring the event up to WP:NOTABILITY for the encyclopedia Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In categories Extreme Kayak fishing article is under Fishing tournaments. See here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fishing_tournaments Why is this article being singled out? This page has more content and reputable sources than most fishing tournaments listed there. One of our sources is "Guy Harvey Outpost News". Guy Harvey is a reputable source that is nationwide and has its own Wikipedia article. This source explains what Extreme kayak fishing is and lists all the winners. This article is not meant as self- promotion or advertising. It exposes the facts about how it is possible to catch large fish such as sailfish, marlin, and pelagics in a small boat such as a kayak. It is a type of fishing tournament that is now possible through the engineering changes in kayak design. These boats can be paddled, pedaled and stood on. These kayaks are made specially for ocean offshore kayak fishing. This changes the game and level for offshore fishing. Please specifically advise why this article is being singled out from all the other fishing tournaments on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekft (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. You haven't responded to the objections raised, and in any case, you disclose that you own the event - you are a paid advocate under our WP:COI guideline and you have ignored what that says - namely "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing" (emphasis from the original). Please pipe down and let the community decide to do with your work. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see reliable sources that mention the company, but none of the ones I reviewed are what I'd call significant coverage of the company. Covering that an event happened and who won isn't coverage of the company. If this ends up being kept, it needs gutted because the current state stinks of promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted. See WP:DISCUSSAFD if actually interested in contributing.

*'Slander. Looking at all of these comments and reviewing Extreme Kayak Fishing article and all of the other "Tournaments" this is looking like slander against this ONE company. Most comments are very unprofessional toward this company for one. They provided answers to most questions and asked for guidance on others. Also they HAVE notable references, even if individuals believe otherwise. Reading over most of the comments they all fail to realize that "stats" and who won these events is what this company is about and is NOT promoting. Yet 90% of the Wiki tournaments have the same thing.

SLANDER, torts. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. Law of Nisi Prius, 3. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum. Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Bac. Abr. Slander. Written or printed slanders are libels; see that word. 2. Here it is proposed to treat of verbal slander only, which may be considered with reference to, 1st. The nature of the accusation. 2d. The falsity of the charge. 3d. The mode of publication. 4th. The occasion; and 5th. The malice or motive of the slander. 3.-Sec. 1. Actionable words are of two descriptions; first, those actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages and, secondly, those actionable only in respect of some actual consequential damages. 4.-1. Words of the first description must impute: 1st. The guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a "traitor," "thief," "highwayman;" or to say that he is guilty of "perjury," "forgery," "murder," and the like. And although the imputation of guilt be general, without stating the particulars of the pretended crime, it is actionable. Cro. Jac. 114, 142; 6 T. R. 674; 3 Wils. 186; 2 Vent. 266; 2 New Rep. 335. See 3 Serg. & Rawle, 255 7 Serg. & Rawle, 451; 1 Binn. 452; 5 Binn. 218; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 261; 2 Binn. 34; 4 Yeates, 423; 10 Serg. & Rawle, 44; Stark. on Slander, 13 to 42; 8 Mass. 248; 13 Johns. 124; Id. 275. 5.-2d. That the party has a disease or distemper which renders him unfit for society. Bac. Abr. Slander, B 2. An action can therefore be sustained for calling a man a leper. Cro. Jac. 144 Stark. on Slander, 97. But charging another with having had a contagious disease is not actionable, as he will not, on that account, be excluded from society. 2 T. R. 473, 4; 2 Str. 1189; Bac. Abr. tit. Slander, B 2. A charge which renders a man ridiculous, and impairs the enjoyment of general society, and injures those imperfect rights of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence which man has with respect to man, is also actionable. Holt on Libels, 221. 6.-3d. Unfitness in an officer, who holds an office to which profit or emolument is attached, either in respect of morals or inability to discharge the duties of the office in such a case an action lies. 1 Salk. 695, 698; Rolle, Ab. 65; 2 Esp. R. 500; 5 Co. 125; 4 Co. 16 a; 1 Str. 617; 2 Ld. Raym. 1369; Bull. N. P. 4; Holt on Libels, 207; Stark. on Slander, 100. 7.-4th. The want of integrity or capacity, whether mental or pecuniary, in the conduct of a profession, trade or business, in which the party is engaged, is actionable, 1 Mal. Entr. 244 as to accuse an attorney or artist of inability, inattention, or want of integrity; 3 Wils. 187; 2 Bl. Rep. 750; or a clergyman of being a drunkard; 1 Binn. 178; is actionable. See Holt on Libels, 210; Id. 217. 8.-2. Of the second class are words which are actionable only in respect of special damages sustained by the party slandered. Though the law will not permit in these cases the inference of damage, yet when the damage has actually been sustained, the party aggrieved may support an action for the publication of an untruth; 1 Lev. 53; 1 Sid. 79, 80; 3 Wood. 210; 2 Leon. 111; unless the assertion be made for the assertion of a supposed claim; Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the case for Defamation, D 30; Bac. Ab. Slander, B; but it lies if maliciously spoken. See 1 Rolle, Ab. 36 1 Saund. 243 Bac. Abr. Slander, C; 8 T. R. 130 8 East, R. 1; Stark. on Slander, 157. 9.-Sec. 2. The charge must be false; 5 Co. 125, 6; Hob. 253; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown. 2 East, R. 436; 1 Saund. 242. The instance of a master making an unfavorable representation of his servant, upon an application for his character, seems to be an exception, in that case there being a presumption from the occasion of the speaking, that the words were true. 1 T. R. 111; 3 B. & P. 587; Stark. on Slander, 44, 175, 223. 10.-Sec. 3. The slander must, of course, be published, that is, communicated to a third person; and if verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired. 1 Rolle, Ab. 74; Cro. Eliz. 857; 1 Saund. 2425 n. 3; Bac. Abr. Slander, D 3. A letter addressed to the party, containing libelous matter, is not sufficient to maintain a civil action, though it may subject the libeler to an indictment, as tending to a breach of the peace; 2 Bl. R. 1038; 1 T. R. 110; 1 Saund. l32, n. 2; 4 Esp. N. P. R. 117; 2 Esp. N. P. R. 623; 2 East, R. 361; the slander must be published respecting the plaintiff; a mother cannot maintain an action for calling her daughter a bastard. 11 Serg. & Rawle, 343. As to the case of a man who repeats the slander invented by another, see Stark. on Slander, 213; 2 P. A. Bro. R. 89; 3 Yeates, 508; 3 Binn. 546. 11.-Sec. 4. To render words actionable, they must be uttered without legal occasion. On some occasions it is justifiable to utter slander of another, in others it is excusable, provided it be uttered without express malice. Bac. Ab. Slander, D 4; Rolle, Ab. 87; 1 Vin. Ab. 540. It is justifiable for au attorney to use scandalizing expressions in support of his client's cause and pertinent thereto. 1 M. & S. 280; 1 Holt's R. 531; 1 B. & A. 232; see 2 Serg. & Rawle, 469; 1 Binn. 178; 4 Yeates, 322; 1 P. A. Browne's R. 40; 11 Verm. R. 536; Stark. on Slander, 182. Members of congress and other legislative assemblies cannot be called to account for anything said in debate.

12.-Sec. 5. Malice is essential to the support of an action for slanderous words. But malice is in general to be presumed until the contrary be proved; 4 B. & C. 247; 1 Saund. 242, n. 2; 1 T. R. 1 11, 544; 1 East, R. 563; 2 East, R. 436; 2 New Rep. 335; Bull. N. P. 8; except in those cases where the occasion prima facie excuses the publication. 4 B. & C. 247. See 14 Serg. & Rawle, 359; Stark. on Slander, 201. See, generally, Com. Dig. tit. Action upon the case for Defamation; Bac. Abr. Slander; 1 Vin. Abr. 187; 1 Phillim. Ev. ch. 8; Yelv. 28, n.; Doctr. Plac. 53 Holt's Law of Libels; Starkie on Slander, Ham. N. P. ch. 2, s. 3.— RyanD1024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Aside from the fact that your post is completely meaningless......you need to know that legal threats aren't allowed on Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and DUCK. Special:Contributions/Ryand1024. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the socking and borderline legal threats here are hardly helping. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:34, 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 Speedy Delete under G3 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Hawkeye

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

Article may very well be a hoax, given the other deleted articles by the article's creator. The article has no sources of any kind verifying that the article's subject even exists, let alone anything coming close to meeting WP:GNG. Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 1 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 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Dimovski

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Hasn't played in a fully professional league or at international level. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with media coverage such as [64] Nfitz (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a few searches

Fairfax News Store - there is one result for "Cassie Dimovski"; a one-sentence mention in an article in the Newcastle Herald.
Fairfax News Store - no results for "Cassandra Dimovski"
Factiva - five results for "Cassie Dimovski". The first is a profile on her in the Diamond Valley Leader, a local newspaper. The second result is an AAP wire report where two sentences are dedicated to Dimovski. The third is a squad listing in the Herald Sun in which Dimovski is included. The fourth is the Newcastle Herald article mentioned above. The fifth is a one-sentence mention in the Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Philip Leader, a local newspaper.
Factiva - 22 results for "Cassandra Dimovski". All but one profile piece in the Diamond Valley Leader are at most one-sentence mentions in routine match coverage.
EBSCOhost Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre - one result for "Cassie Dimovski"; the Newcastle Herald article mentioned above. No results for "Cassandra Dimovski".
Australian FourFourTwo - can't search because they deleted their database. Hack (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Has played just 5 games in a non-fully-professional league. If there were any more articles like the one mentioned by Nfitz, she would meet WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (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 keep. There was also consensus to move to Libraries and librarians in fiction, will move the article to that title. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries in fiction

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

Contested prod-a list that would be impossible to ever get info for (just look at films and you would get a endless list that you would have to have by decade and it still be too large) Just a list you can't have on here. Wgolf (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE DELETION. In my view, this proposal for deletion is arbitrary. In the first instance, IF the list ever gets too long, one can then cherry pick the most notable stories. Secondly, Wikipedia already carries a huge number of similar lists, where arguably the topic can (and sometimes does) lead to long lists. By way of example, I will mention just a handful of such lists:

Assassinations in fiction,

Fiction set in the Roman Empire,

Fiction based on World War I,

Fiction based on World War II,

List of fictional toxins,

List of science fiction films, and

List of fictional robots and androids.

If the above are acceptable in Wikipedia, pray explain to me why not also a page about libraries in fiction ?

Joe Gatt (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Undecided~~ Keep per Andrew D.'s finds. The only examples I can think of where the library plays a significant role is The Librarian series and the Star Trek episode "All Our Yesterdays". (No Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Yeah, I'm trying to forget that one too.) ~~Otherwise, it makes no more sense than Kitchens in fiction, Convention halls in fiction, etc.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clarityfiend. Notwithstanding that you are also keen on deleting this page, your reason for deletion appears to be diametrically opposed to the view of Wgolf, in the sense that you believe that such a list should be a very short one! However, there are many more examples of notable fictional stories where the library plays a very significant role, such as in the 2002 film The Time Machine, for example. Did you see that film by any chance? Joe Gatt (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Time Machine (1960 film) was plenty good enough for me. In any case, since the synopsis for the 2002 film mentions the word "library" exactly once, I'm not seeing much support for your claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got two more: The Day After Tomorrow and maybe The Breakfast Club. The thing is, no recognized authority has compiled a list. That's the main objection. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would be a reasonable list if it were only works of fiction where a library played a central part, not just a scene took place there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-yes that is true-I was just thinking when I saw the title though how this is used a bunch of times. And maybe if you indicate by film, novel or video games also. (I mean how many films have scenes where the secret chamber is behind books!) Of course there is Beauty and the Beast while we are at it. Wgolf (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that this list would be notable enough to warrant an article, though if the other lists mentioned above are notable enough, maybe I'm wrong. Tris1313 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we're talking about fiction, not just films, the first two titles that come to mind are The Library of Babel by Jorge Luis Borges and The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. Our existing article about The Library of Babel includes an "Influence" section listing other works inspired by Borges. Note that we have Category:Fictional libraries and Category:Works set in libraries. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There could be a decent article here if it focused on fictional works where libraries played a central role, but what we have here is just a random list of works that have a library in. --Michig (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In respect to those who are advocating for the deletion of this page, I still have not received any explanation of why this such a page should be deleted, when Wikipedia already carries a host of similar lists! Joe Gatt (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that it is impossible to get information about this. That's quite false - for example, see Librarians in Fiction; Libraries in Science Fiction; or Libraries in fiction quiz. Andrew D. (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG and meets WP:LISTN. Source examples include: [65], [66], [67], [68] (scroll down), [69] (scroll down). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page should either be renamed Libraries and librarians in fiction or have the librarian entries/criterion removed. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like an indiscriminate list to me. Neutrality^talk 01:17, 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 // stole my cup // and beans // 01:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A relatively small number of case is enough, though I would for convenience accept a renaming to Libraries and librarians in fiction, as it is often hard to separate the two. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I support renaming the article to Libraries and librarians in fiction. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – I likewise support renaming the article to Libraries and librarians in fiction. Joe Gatt (talk) 12:42, 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 Speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) Relentlessly (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi Tour

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

~~Race that falls under too soon as the first one has not even happened yet! Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)~~withdrawn[reply]

Keep per WP:NCYC (Ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2) (my bolding) and per WP:CRYSTAL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Yes, this is not due to start until October, but it is listed by the UCI to take place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading para. 1 of WP:CRYSTAL, the event is (a) notable, (b) almost certain to take place, (c) in preparation, (d) the subject of plenty of reliable sources. As a secondary matter, it also passes WP:NCYC. I've expanded the article, corrected false information and improved the referencing to boot. Relentlessly (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfils requirements set out by WP:NCYC. Wgolf do any of you AfD nominators actually look at notability guides before you nominate..? XyZAn (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-well this was a iffy one and yes I did-which is why I put this up also as I was not 100% sure given the fact that since I thought if the first one never happened it might be too soon then! With that said-Withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 16:38, 1 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 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Shaw (healthcare administrator)

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

Non-notable bureaucrat fails WP:BIO. (See also recently concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smart (healthcare administrator) for some tangential discussion.) Pax 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To the extent she has been given an award, it is due to award inflation, not particular accomplishment. She has not done more than many other hospital administrators over the years. This article mainly just tends towards presentism in Wikipedia. She has not made significant impact. She was given a low level honor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holder of the CBE, which has always been held to satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1 in previous AfDs. Nobody with such an award has ever been deleted to my knowledge. Very definitely not a "low-level honour" or due to "award inflation" (how insulting and ignorant is that?) in any shape or form. The highest honour below knighthood for which most people are eligible and only a few dozen are awarded every year. In actual fact, contrary to what some seem to believe, considerably fewer honours at this level are awarded now than were awarded in the past, so I really fail to see how this is award inflation (it is certainly true that many more OBEs and MBEs are awarded now, and we do not consider these alone to be evidence of notability, but these increased numbers do not apply to higher awards). Only those who have made a very significant contribution to their field would even be considered for an award at this level. Quite frankly, anyone who believes the CBE is insignificant clearly has absolutely zero knowledge of the British Honours System and should probably avoid looking foolish by commenting on it. See my answer to the nominator on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smart (healthcare administrator). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awarded the CBE which is a very high level award in the British Honours System only awarded to someone who has made an incredible and significant contribution in their respective field. Jack1956 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keeppp. Pax - needs to realise that when he clearly doesn't understand a subject and is being kindly schooled on that subject that it is extremely unbecoming (not to say potentially idiotic) to insist that one's teacher that he's wrong. Le petit fromage (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're !voting speedy keep here when you !voted delete in the Smart AfD? That's incongruous. (Aside from that, I would suggest remaining WP:CIVIL. Pax 19:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- No, no, really, it's not, as has been explained to you multiple times now. It's not my fault you refuse to understand what is being explained to you. Le petit fromage (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever occurred to you that I have concluded you're wrong? I wasn't the only one to do so at the Smart AfD. Pax 04:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a minority of two is hardly distinguishable from a minority of one and does not represent consensus (which has been explained to you now at length - see previous comment). Le petit fromage (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Smart article failed and was deleted. Obviously you did not enjoy consensus. Pax 23:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously failed to notice the significant difference: Smart doesn't have the CBE! There is therefore nothing inconsistent here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources prove she is notable. AlbinoFerret 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CBE (as opposed to MBE) is fairly good evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to those editors who keep pushing the CBE: As noted in the Tim Smart AfD discussion (also linked in the rationale), the CBE (as opposed to, say, a knighthood), is not a significant enough award to confer notability. (The fact that it is being routinely bestowed upon civil service bureaucrats without external notability is rather telling.) The subject's major accolade aside from the CBE, being 33rd highest paid manager is one bureaucracy, puts them lower on that list than Smart. Pax 19:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not routinely conferred on anyone. Please try to understand that you really don't know what you're talking about here. In the Smart discussion, the only person who "noted" the CBE wasn't notable was you - and since Smart doesn't have one it wasn't relevant there in any case. The fact is that in every other AfD for someone with a CBE the article has been kept, usually on the principal basis that they have a CBE. It's your prerogative not to agree, but your rationale is incorrect and your opinion is not accepted by the Wikipedia community. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

104 (give or take a few due to my shoddy counting) CBEs were awarded in 2014, the over-whelming bulk of them to faceless bureaucrats and political hacks (such as the illustrious "Clive Kenneth Stephens. Deputy director, Large Business Service, Bristol, HM Revenue and Customs." and "Roy Alexander Stone. Principal private secretary, Government chief Whip's Office", etc. - Private secretaries? These people are not in the news. They are not movers and shakers. They are simply being given a cheapened award now thrown out like candy at a parade. There is no suitable rationale for considering them notable. Pax 03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously really don't have a clue about British government if you think a principal private secretary is non-notable. Just because these people haven't played in a single professional football match (our standard of notability for sportspeople), had a song in the charts (our standard for musicians) or been elected to a 1,000-person national assembly (our standard for politicians) doesn't make them non-notable. Given you're in a clear minority here, just give it up, stop insulting people you don't know and honours system you don't understand, and go back to commenting on something you know something about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Keep That she has a CBE seems enough. I read what Pax said and if it's true that the CBE has become meaningless then change my vote. What does external notability refer to? Can she not be notable for her bureaucratic work alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Pax says isn't true. He's been told is isn't true multiple times by multiple people. He's also been told why it isn't true multiple times by multiple people. Yet, he persists in claiming that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Le petit fromage (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing your level best to blank-out Mr. Lambert. Pax 03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A CBE should be enough, the rest of the article shows some other notability too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe have usually accepted CBE: It is MBE that we general do not seriously consider. (nor, usually OBE) She has been head of a major hospital trust, which is a position that has often been considered notable here. The head of a major service like that is not a routine civil servant. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CBE should be deprecated if over a hundred of them are being handed out every year (see Guardian link in prior comment), with >90% of them going to government barnacles. Pax 03:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Nyemba

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

Promotional article fails WP:NMUSIC Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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, buff bills 7701 00:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not WP:NOTABLE - no sources to speak of. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and lacks WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:17, 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 no consensus. Nakon 02:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Mohammadi

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted in 2013 and he has no notable accomplishments since then. Winning some junior awards does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:ATHLETE. This is no mention of him as an adult in the FILA (world wrestling organization) database. Any coverage of him is based on his winning the ancient Iranian sport of Pahlevani wrestling in 2000. I tried to redirect this article to Pahlevan of Iran and was told I had to take it to AfD by user Just Chilling. I would still prefer to Redirect this article.Mdtemp (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who contested the PROD mainly since I think deletion (or not) should take into consideration the Pahlevani wrestling title. Is that a notable event, is it equivalent to a National title. I could not help but think of Sumo Yokozuna. I know wrestling is big in Iran. On a related note the quality of the Pahlevan of Iran article does not inspire a lot of confidence.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if the article can be kept or not, but I know Pahlevan of Iran title is so important that it is tighten up by President of Iran. (see: 1 2 3 4) The title is linked to legendary hero Pouria. Pahlevun (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those pictures are interesting showing quite a variation in awardees not all looking like top wrestlers in their competitive prime.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Just checked the Pahlevan of Iran page. Only wrestlers who also placed in major international tournaments have English Wikipedia pages. This person perhaps warrants a page in Persian Wikipedia, but I just checked some US wrestlers of slightly lesser stature, and they don't have pages in English. Tapered (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator but also based on the comments of Tapered. Not convinced that Pahlevan of Iran is the equal to the top competitive National wrestling title and there is no evidence of success at international senior level events.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominators reasoning and also the user Tapered. Mbcap (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (Changed comment) This is a prestigious championship in a major wrestling nation. There are 2 reliable and ABSOLUTELY independent reliable sources, from nations with diametrically opposed policies--the US and Iran. I changed my comment based on a thorough reading of WP:N. Please at least extend the comment period for others to read this new opinion. Tapered (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need then to strike out your delete !vote above. Just Chilling (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the references are? Also that would be about the competition not the participant right?Peter Rehse (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There's just not much there - I would be willing to change my mind if any efforts were made to expand and improve the article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wrestling is a major sport in Iran and being one of it's champions is on par with being a #1 PGA Championship ranking or a US Open champion in the US. Even a delete voter says this person warrants an article on Persian WP. No need to start systemic bias with this champion. Additionally the coverage already in the article, particularly by Radio Farda, looks very significant. --Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the significant coverage that would support a separate article for this individual. Wrestling is a big sport in Iran, so it's quite possible that this event is notable. However, there's nothing that supports a claim of notability through WP:ATHLETE since this event isn't an official FILA national championship, but rather more of a cultural and historical event. I can't decide how I want to vote on this article, but I think I am currently leaning toward a redirect on the individual and towards saying the event is notable. I know the event isn't actually up for AfD, but it feels like it. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why this wasn't CSD. I'm seeing no evidence of significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage of this person linked in the article. Even if it wasn't there, barring BLP concerns it wouldn't be a CSD candidate as it asserts notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) An hey, Nightshift. Nice to see you. --Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It "asserted notability" the first time it was deleted. As a previously deleted article, it is a CSD candidate. Yes, that can be overcome of the subject becomes clearly notable, but obviously at least a few people don't see that notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my redirect was undone by an admin, I doubt a CSD would have had a chance.Mdtemp (talk) 17:43, 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. Keep, and Rename to Zoological Garden (PRR station) Nakon 02:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoological Garden (SEPTA station)

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL and may be outdated. Article is about a proposed rail station that was briefly mentioned by local newspapers back in April 2013, but otherwise, there have been no other references about this proposed station ever since. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- How does WP:CRYSTAL apply to a station that existed in the past? Once notable, always notable. Just because there has been talk to re-open it doesn't mean it has vaporized from history. --Oakshade (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only result in a google news search is the wikipedia article on it. WP:CRYSTAL does apply because it is not currently in existence. Perhaps when it is rebuilt (if it ever is considering it was planned in 2013) it possibly may become notable, but it isnt now and has nothing in the past to make it so. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 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) 00:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the reopening plans, there was a station at this site which closed in 1902, and that station is notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article isn't about the former station, it's about the proposed SEPTA station, hence the article name. It it were renamed or rewritten for the former station (assuming its notability could be established), then that would be a different situation. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only that it is about the former station. The name "SEPTA" is simply an affectation based on the proposed future service. Many stations all over the world have newer names based on their current or proposed affiliation. --Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Zoological Garden (PRR station) until we know for certain that the station is going to be revised by SEPTA. Then expand it and revert it back to its current name. Let's not forget that there was a time when Interstate 495 (North Carolina) was deleted on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL, and now it's a known proposed highway. -------User:DanTD (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as noted by User:DanTD. The proposed station is just, well, proposed. But this was previously a station that existed and the article ought to be kept under an appropriate title. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition

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

Interesting but non-notable research institute within a single university. Various projects and people there may be notable, but not the instate as a whole. In practice, our standards for such institutes is on the strict side. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH overall. Source examples include:

Research could customize, accelerate design of powered exoskeletons. Healio.
The Atlas Robot is Agile Enough to Mimic 'The Karate Kid'. Design News.
Tech Jewel: Robots Invade Miami. Florida Trend.
Human, Machine Research Institute Joins Ocala's Downtown Florida Trend.
Exoskeleton to Help Astronauts with Muscle and Bone Density Loss. Robot Magazine.
IHMC’s Ken Ford receives top Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence award. Pensacola Today.
Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge. page 122.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The assertions at top from DGG are incorrect. IHMC began 25 years ago at one university, but later was set up and funded by the Florida Legislature as an independent organization. IHMC receives federal and private grants, and is affiliated with most Florida universities. Please see Florida Statute 1004.447, which established it as an independent institute. The institute has more than 80 researchers, most of whom have Ph.Ds or M.Ds. Regarding earlier concerns about promotional-sounding content, most of that has been removed, and sources added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Rabb (talk • contribs) 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources Their robot is notable. Their director is notable. None of that shows the organization is notable. Local news stories are based on PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 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, Nakon 05:14, 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, Esquivalience ^t 00:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above votes. --TL22 (talk) 00:21, 1 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Eye on the Sunrise

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

Album that seems to not be notable enough for Wikipedia with no refs as well. Wgolf (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC --TL22 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band unless that article is deleted before this AfD finishes. Wgolf - when you come across articles like this containing little more than a tracklisting, no claim of notability, and no sources, could you please try redirecting them to the artist/band first rather than PRODding or AfDing them? --Michig (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michig-that could be a good idea as I'm finding so many in the back log as of late. Wgolf (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 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.

April Fools' nominations

< April Fools' Day 2014	April Fools' Day 2016 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no valid reason given. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus (genus)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Reason: >bash

>to Spiteful Crow

>SMAAAAAAASH!

>Spiteful Crow received 20 damage

>Spiteful Crow became tame!

>Wikipedia article deleted! Ness from Onett (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 1 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. April Fools is officially over thank the lord (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Triangles have 3 sides. ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED --TL22 (talk) 23:03, 1 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. April Fools is officially over thank the lord (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Probably doesn't exist, so it can be a hoax. ^{[April Fools!]} --TL22 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD-G3 it. Definitely a hoax, never heard of this "god" before. -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I laughed really hard when I saw this. It's an awesome joke! BenLinus 1214^talk 22:24, 1 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. Self-closing due to a warning. LOL (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

He was wrong about pretty much everything. Wikipedia does not knowingly keep false information. ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 21:19, 1 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. Fools' day is pretty much over at this point. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

The Ghostbusters are coming! --TL22 (talk) 21:23, 1 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. April fools joke (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BEANS. Don't give people ideas!^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 21:11, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. April fools joke (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spell checker

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

Doesn't seem to exist, judging by how some people type. ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 21:08, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. April fools joke (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typing

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

Whoever made the page typed to do so. WP:COI. Oh no! I just typed! I have a COI!! Oh no, I did it again! ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 21:06, 1 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. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

National Security Agency

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

This should save our online privacy, for a while... Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 21:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The NSA's classified slides are full of WP:OR and WP:CANVASSING. The NSA is engaged in vandalism and disruptive actions. The NSA's actions are complete bollocks.^{[April Fools!]} Esquivalience ^t 21:18, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's a joke, and the "rules" say keep it out of article space (note that a bot added the AfD tag to the article). kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror

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

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the best April Fool of all? ^{[April Fools!]} O N R (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not topping last year's Twelfth Doctor nomination. O N R (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Illuminati because Illuminati spelled backwards is Itanimulli. Which means nothing. O N R (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EXTERMINATE! A D AL EK (TALK) 20:41, 1 APRIL 2015 (BRITISH DALEK TIME)
Delete because I prefer the Cybermen to the Daleks. O N R (talk) 19:42, 1 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. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

GOTTA GO FAST TL22 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Gotta go faster. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he stole all the coins. ///EuroCarGT 20:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Speedy Delete Because a speedy delete would be too slow. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Robotnik 21:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete for the sake of all Smash Bros fans everywhere who see him as a spammer. CycloneGU (talk) 21:14, 1 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 deeeeleeete. -- Cyber Controller (contact channel) 02:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets courageously saved by The Doctor

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

Exterminate This article shall cease existing. --Dalek Jast (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate Clear violation of WP:NPOV. --Dalek Thay (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate This is a clear violation of your WP:NPOV. --Dalek Caan (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dete This article has been deemed a threat and shall be deleted. --Cyberman 33342 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Exterminate~~ changing to Neutral. I dunno, guys. Maybe we should reconsider. --Dalek Sec (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't like its current name, I have hope it can be improved and its title changed. --slakr^\ talk / 01:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your hope makes you weak. We can fix that. --Cyberman 920234 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks --slakr^\ talk / 01:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading is mandatory. Reject stock will be incinerated. --Cyberman 920234 (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read our no personal attacks policy. That includes flaming others. --slakr^\ talk / 01:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot resist us. We will not stop until you comply. --Cyberman 85539b (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and also read our policy against edit warring. --slakr^\ talk / 02:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The result was Deleted. (Not; obviously! :)) –Davey2010^Talk 04:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen (2013 film)

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

FAILS FILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

triple-crown-redirect with crystal ball our own crystal ball and ~~Lucille Ball~~ Snow White DivineAlpha (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, let it go... WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and besides, Monster's Inc. was a lot better. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a long list of films I'd like to delete while we're at it. --B (talk) 04:25, 1 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. Bees'll buzz. Kids'll blow dandelion fuzz. Olaf will be doing whatever WP:SNOW does in SUUUMMMMMMEEEERRRR! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf (Disney)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Elsa [speaking] Bolt? [singing] Do you want to melt the snowmaaan? It's the only way to end this craaaze. His page cannot be up here anymore, so don't be overlooked, use your superpowers to melt him awaaaay. And I'll let you take over his place if you can prove that your powers are better than mine, tooooo. Bolt, do you want to melt the snowman? Okay, tryyyyy. Trainfan01 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: Bolt would never do such a thing! Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination proposed in bad faith, the words does not match the music.^{[April Fools!]} 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep? St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:41, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just look away. What you can't see won't harm you. Maybe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary friend

AfDs for this article:

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

Anyone who thinks this creature exists is crazy. ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imaginary Gary. Better hope he doesn't try and turn your childhood against you for calling him a "creature". Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 05:05, 1 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 Deleted. (Not obviously! :)) –Davey2010^Talk 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Human

Extended content

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant COI –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails the WP:GNG as we cannot find multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. --B (talk) 04:06, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirecting to blurry vision would likely be a better target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blurred Lines

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Hopeless WP:COPYVIO. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Word Crimes. That's a far better song. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Injunct [70] clearly the selling of wikipedia pageviews is injuncted -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:13, 1 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. According to Microsoft, Spartan is now beautiful, not IE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

"You're too slow!" TL22 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Feldkahl-the river is more important! Wgolf (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No one cares about Interweb Exploder. Dough4872 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as HISTORICAL. kennethaw88 • talk 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Send to the Recycle Bin - I'm using Chrome anyway. Plus it's going to be replaced by Project Spartan (or whatever it's going to be called) soon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MeRgE to WorldWideWeb. Yea. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into shit - Sums this up nicely. –Davey2010^Talk 02:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dave. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI. Seriously, look at this: Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wikipedia web browser [app] is far superior! DivineAlpha (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to Firefox 213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and get a better browser. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still use IE!!!--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 08:41, 1 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. It exists. The Invisible Man told me so. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible rail

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

If it's invisible, how do we know it exists? It doesn't. Delete. ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By your logic, Santa doesn't exist! Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:47, 1 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 porn. No Avenue Q jokes? I'm disappointed in you lot, although Liam987 shows promise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Print to fix the COI. Oh, wait... --TL22 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT It took some digging around, but there is apparently some rather significant coverage on this "Internet" thing from books, newspapers and other print sources. Unfortunately, this article is so overly reliant on its own sources that I think it would just be easier to delete it and rewrite it from scratch. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A. Wgolf (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but merge with Google, Wikipedia, Amazon.com et al. We don't have articles for specific pages in books, so why should we have articles on specific pages on the Internet? Liam987 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Obama. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: It clearly fails WP:A11. buff bills 7701 01:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A11 being "Obviously invented"? Can't argue with that, it was indisputably invented. (By Al Gore or Tim Berners Lee, depending on who you believe). Liam987 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore obviously created the page. buff bills 7701 01:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find a good source, all print sources seem to make use of this internet to some extent, haven't been able to find a single writer that covers it that doesn't use it for communication. Glad someone caught this, seems like it's been stealthily trying to control Wikipedia from the start. PhantomTech (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage of the internet outside the internet. Dough4872 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY SPEEDY Delete as per norm WP:IDONTLIKEIT too slow. Bobherry Talk Edits Happy April Fools Day! 01:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - If we could live without it until the 1990s, we will manage without. Just print out everything and make a paper library. And beside that, WP:IDONTLIKEIT either. Hafspajen (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Guys are we getting ahead of ourselves? If the internet is deleted, Wikipedia goes with it. Where are we supposed to contribute our knowledge now? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, nowhere. We just sit down and watch TV an go stupid. It worked before... Hafspajen (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians have knowledge? News to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MeRgE to smartphone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go-let's just have it become The Avengers, since we know they will save the day anyway! Wgolf (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request I would absolutely like my internet speedied. EEng (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Trust me, you wouldn't like it Speedy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twitter. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can watch The Simspons on the internet.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could also watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians if you wanted to, so that should be changed to a 500x delete. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Korea so they can hack us and the Communists will rule the world! Eye snore (pc) 03:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cats: The Internet, as we all know, is made of cats, so this non-notable item (that's not even a physical object) should just be mentioned there. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kim Jong-il, I heard he invented the internet, along with his other famous inventions like Facebook, the telephone, and of course, kimchi. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook Epic Genius (talk) 18:14, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Plate of brownies disappears) NOOOOOO!!!!! WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evil

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

Maybe if we delete this article, it can be destroyed from the world! ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete!! Praise the Lord! Sherlock Holmes (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and spread Love instead! Oh wait, that's up for deletion too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, redirect to Ernest Borgnine. Remember, Evil is afoot! EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL! Praise the Lord! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete!! Praise the Lord! Archangel Michael (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!! Praise the Lord! Archangel Gabriel (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!! Praise the Lord! Archangel Raphael (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!! Praise the Lord! Je Suis Charlie (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!! Praise the Lord! Jesus Hafspajen (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!! Praise me! Jesus Christ (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dirty Bubble, as he is the most EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL supervillan of them all. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First, per WP:GOOGLEHITS there are 468,000,000 results. Second I was able to find definitions here, here, and here. Finally, it has a lot of synonyms such as bad, villainous, heinous, hideous, nefarious, wicked, and maleficent. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:38, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Font. Or Fount. But that's a battle for another day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge

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

Everyone who has contributed constructively to this article knows what it is. WP:COI.^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As with all nerds, I value knowledge. Since I'm a Supernerd, that means that I have to fight for knowledge, so I can't support anything but a keep. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:54, 1 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. "Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again..." Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Inquisition

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

AfDs for this article:

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

This entire article violates the principle of least astonishment, and there is no possible solution other than outright deletion. Why, you ask? Because...

NOBODY EXPECTS THE

SPANISH INQUISITION!
The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our chief weapons of fear, surprise, a fanatical devotion to the pope...will be less valuable with an article. If there's a Wikipedia page, anyone can read about and expect the Spanish Inquisition! Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, nobody expects the deletion of the Spanish Inquisition. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I did find one source on the website howstuffworks. I'm confident that a careful search would turn up another source or two. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. GNG? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this obscure source. I now think WP:GNG has been established.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 1 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 Daft Punk. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robot

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Repeatedly edited by ClueBot and ClueBot NG. Conflict of interest.^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but ban bots from editing article. Dough4872 03:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Wall-E. Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why this article was nominated. I did find this source. Is IMDb consider a reliable source? --I am One of Many (talk) 05:09, 1 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 ajar. Come on guys, we all know that Love Is an Open Door. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Don't try to define Love! Delete. ^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no love for this article. Dough4872 03:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is love, baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dopamine, Seratonin, or any of the other brain juices responsible. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 05:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, a Google search on "Love" reveals 3,830,000,000 WP:GOOGLEHITS. Second, I found this definition, which indicates that Love appears to be important to many people.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:15, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. When the AfD is closed you have my permission to have a Happy April Fool's Day! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Rises

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

It's clear The Avengers are better! Wgolf (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely! Down with Batman! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close debate due to the inevitable comments from Marvel fanboys and girls Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-I'm convinced!-The Avengers Wgolf (talk) 04:34, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Puny god. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Avengers (2012 film)

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

It's clear Batman is better! Wgolf (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the Avengers are better! How about a WP:BOOMERANG for that, let's delete Batman! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging interested parties: Thor, Iron Man, The Hulk, Captain America, Black Widow, Nick Fury, Hawkeye, Maria Hill, Phil Coulson. It'd be better if Loki wasn't informed of this, he'd have all kinds of fun we don't need in such a serious discussion. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Loki will ruin it! Wgolf (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-I'm convinced!-The Batman Wgolf (talk) 04:34, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

The result was Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu

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

And with strange eons, even Cthulhu must die.^{[April Fools!]} Mr. Guye (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But that doesn't mean his article has to. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:52, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If it went away then how would I ever be able to shout "LOOK OUT RADIOACTIVE MAN!" in the middle of the grocery store? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Radium

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

I don't care about radioactivity. Because my teacher prevented anyone from handling radioactive substances like this. Eye snore (pc) 02:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep-it should just sleep. Wgolf (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We shouldn't go near this stuff! Dough4872 02:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do away with this before it harms our other articles! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very carefully. Hafspajen (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CAREFULLY delete while wearing lead-lined clothes - I already emit 61 µSv of radiation daily, I don't need to emit more... -G.A.WILMBROKE [ USER / ALT / TALK / CONTRIBS ] 03:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My Geiger counter is going crazy just from reading this! Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moot: If we wait long enough, the substance will delete itself. Altamel (talk) 06:09, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hardy har har! (non-admin closure) TheMesquito^buzz 03:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community

AfDs for this article:

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

Conflict of Interest ^{[April Fools!]} April fools everyone!!!! :D Bobherry Talk Edits Happy April Fools Day! 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have never seen anyone from outside the Wikipedia community edit this page. Dough4872 02:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penis as we're all dicks on here and I'm the biggest one . –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-creator of this AFD is clearly a sockpuppet. Wgolf (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All online communities are inherently notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Superman enemies. Hafspajen (talk) 03:00, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

The result was elete B and D, ut keep the rest. I elieve that this Af was a ig success, on't you guys? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B

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

Its such a ripoff of the letter A! I mean A was there first! So its time to get rid of this letter! Wgolf (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also propose we delete C for being a ripoff of B. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry-lets just delete them all! they are not sequels or remakes, they are ripoffs! Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3. There is no indication from any reliable source that there even is a letter "B", so it should e deleted as a hoax. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, followed by C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z. Dough4872 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its in my name!!!! Bobherry Talk Edits Happy April Fools Day! 02:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A11 - It oviously doesn't exist. –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You cant fool us. Bees are alive and buzzing all around your heads, changing the alphabet wont hide that. —Soap— 02:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banana It's important to keep because of the almighty banana. OMGWEEGEE2 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You almost make me want to withdraw this due to the banana! Wgolf (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the real fake here is ß, which is a copycat of B! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's see what /b/ has to say about this. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 03:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain why you want to delete me? --B (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that they are needed to produce honey. CycloneGU (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Reluctant) Keep I can do nout but agree with Bobherry. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:48, 1 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 have been assured that there is nothing in Detroit. Other than, Doctor Detroit that is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WXYZ-TV

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

I don't like the unusual call letters. Last four letters of the English alphabet? That is a lack of effort.^{[April Fools!]} Eye snore (pc) 01:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mow-go to Lawn-and its still March 31st anyway. Wgolf (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not in UTC it wasn't. ekips39 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IT GO BYE BYE as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT Bobherry Talk Edits Happy April Fools Day! 01:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd rather watch WDIV-TV anyway. Dough4872 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also propose deletion of WWWW-FM; now that's just pure laziness right there. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 03:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Latin alphabet. Someone simply got confused. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wixies. People will think that this title is just a placeholder (like how User:Example isn't a real user), so spelling it phonetically will clear that up. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:06, 1 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.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 meta. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply isn't notable enough. Fryedk (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is non notable -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pi. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 1 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 LAME. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of April Fools' Day jokes

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

In the spirit of WP:BEANS, to prevent dumb pranks. Epic Genius (talk) 14:55, 1 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.