Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 January	8 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centene Corporation

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

This page is little more than an advertisement, and has remained so for well over a year. The only major recent contributor to the page edits primarily this page and is located in the same city as the corporation's main offices. OmnipotentEntity (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BEFORE appears not to have been done. This clearly meets the requirements of WP:LISTED. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ranks #251 on the Fortune 500 list. [1] Brimba (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altai

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

A complete subset of the Altay disambiguation page—it does not meet the double disambiguation guidelines but does violate the practices for combining terms on disambiguation pages (particularly the third bullet, "Variant spellings"). The "Altay" page already contains all entries which may be referred as either "Altay" or "Altai" (and often as both).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 15, 2014; 18:22 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you looked to redirect this page to Altay, but it was reverted by Inwind with the reason given: 'Turkish and Chinese Altay is not the same as Russian Altai.' I have no idea if this is correct or not.Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, it is correct; from the content point of view. The problem here, however, is that disambiguation pages are not content, they are simply navigational tools. We don't have a disambiguation page at Altay and a related article at Altai; what we have is two disambiguation pages, one of which (Altai) contains only one specific spelling variation and is a complete subset of another. That's the exact situation WP:DPAGE addresses.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 16, 2014; 16:16 (UTC)
Comment to provide a bit of background for the discussion I would like to give a little explanation to the spelling variants:

Both

The Altai Mountains which are the source of the majority of subjects can be romanized either as Altai or as Altay. This seems to be true for all languages involved (Russian, Kazakh, Mongolian and Chinese)

only Altay

The Turkish name

only Altai

The novel by Wu Ming, a group of Italian authors
Altai Inc in Computer Associates Int'l, Inc. v. Altai Inc.

Inwind (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The legal case, as it's currently presented, does not really belong in the main section, since it's a partial title match, although it would of course be fine under "See also". That leaves exactly one entry on the "Altai" page (the novel) which may not be referred to as "Altay"; the bulk of other entries can be referred to using either spelling. In other words, if both disambigs were to be kept, the only entries not present on both would be the novel (only on "Altai") and the people with the Turkish names (only on "Altay"), resulting in overwhelming duplication of entries. This can easier be resolved by leaving just one page (Altay, to which "Altai" redirects) with three main sections ("can be referred to using the 'Altai' spelling only, the 'Altay' spelling only, or using either spelling"). Would you see that as an acceptable compromise? The alternative is maintaining two nearly identical pages, and that tends to be confusing to both readers and editors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 17, 2014; 16:09 (UTC)
Regarding the legal case, it is common in copyright circles to refer to it as just Altai (here, for example). bd2412 T 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Good to know; thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 18, 2014; 16:31 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a merge discussion on AfD? Is this a WP:CFORK or? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a content fork because the pages in question are disambiguation pages (i.e., strictly navigational tools).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 5, 2015; 13:12 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Latebird (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I see two possibilities:
1. A clear split: Russian and Mongolian topics to Altai, Chinese and Turkish topics to Altay etc. according to the relevant naming conventions. "See also" in between.
2. A full merge: Redirect one to the other

Since many people use different spellings than ours, and the two are derived from the same Mongolian word, I'd prefer the latter. --Latebird (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D'Ambrosio

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

Non notable--local mentions only DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 20:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 20:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An online search does not reveal notability. Manzzoku (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian-Pakistani

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

The article is about a common Indian-Pakistani culture, but it is not clear from the article what is "common" there. There are no sources, and no clear explanation on what exactly is the topic of the article. It is a kind of wp:OR which should be removed from encyclopedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. What can be called "Hindustani" culture does exist in North India and Pakistan (see Hindustani language, Hindustani classical music, Mughlai cuisine, Indo-Aryan peoples, Desi etc.) But this article is a vague, unreferenced OR piece. utcursch | talk 18:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute OR. Doesn't deserve an article. ƬheStrike Σagle 13:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior

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

Unnecessary duplicate of List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior (United States). I don't see why this is needed. The international channels show their programs on their respective articles. Dcbanners (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikramjeet Kanwarpal

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

Actor played character roles but has just 1 source. Fails WP:NACTOR Derevation (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails NACTOR, Since the only crap coming up is Facebook, Linkedin & Twitter there's no evidence of notability at all. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom Derevation (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) --being nominator, you're supposed to favor deletion of article, no need to !vote twice.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Subject appears to be meeting WP:NACTOR #1, for they have had significant roles in multiple notable films and tv shows. They recently played a major role in Creature 3D] film -[2], and 24 (Indian TV series) -that brought them full-page coverage in Times of India. Times of India in this source apparently confirms the WP:NACTOR #1 crtieria, that says, "Major Bikramjeet Kanwarpal, who has many serials and films to his credit, will be playing the important role of Abul Fazal." Few other sources are as following, 4, 5, etc. Majority of the sources however, are supposed to in Hindi and other Indian regional language sources. Here one should note that, an actor can be notable, even if they fail GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Just a few sites and blog are not enough. Plus blogs aren't reliable. Actor just known for his minor roles. Derevation^{Give Me Five} 11:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! are you calling Times of India, Amar Ujala and India-West sites blog???? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Derevation was counting them under "few sites", not blog. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 17:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -Subject meets Wikipedia's notability guideline on Actors that seeks, Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. A quick glance at their works in multiple films testify "many notable films" criteria, and their coverage in the world largest reading English newspaper Times of India that says, "Major Bikramjeet Kanwarpal, who has many serials and films to his credit, will be playing the important role of Abul Fazal" further evidence the claim of their "significant role" in these multiple notable films. Their significant coverage in another Times of India that is fully subject-centric also fulfills the required, and another reputable source India-West -1 -that has had published him for his significant role in a notable film Creature 3D further attest the claim and substantiate the "WP:NACTOR" #1 criteria. Apart from these, they've also received significant coverage in Amar Ujala, a reputable daily Hindi newspaper -2 (it is in 3 pages, click on next that appears on bottom of story) for their work in Creature 3D film. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Anupmehra (talk · contribs). This article^WebCite from the Times of India provides substantial coverage of the subject. WP:NACTORS is met because the subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". There are likely several offline Hindi sources about the subject as well, so it is likely that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Anthony Appleyard per CSD G6, "Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page". NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Rains (disambiguation)

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

Utterly unnecessary dab page per WP:TWODABS. There's already a hatnote in the obvious primary article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and have nominated it for Speedy delete G-6, unnecessary dab page. PamD 12:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah Lawson

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

Failed WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – According to this source, he has played in the Ghana Premier League which according to WP:NFOOTBALL is a notable league. I'm adding this source in the article.
Weak Delete - The source above seems to show that the player has made at least one appearance in a fully professional league. However, there are still WP:GNG issues here. Normally, I would not call these into question, but I am concerned that if the photo in the source noted above shows the players, as I suspect, preparing for the game, then I am far from convinced that they are at a grounds with sufficient facilities / attendance to indicate a genuinely FPL throughout. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – The source naming Lawson as a player on the pitch is a blurb by the opposing team (Medeama SC), but it doesn't appear to include lineups (I know, not required) and there is little substance. Still, this was a Ghana Premier League match, and appearing in a match within an FPL meets NFOOTY. There is little other independent coverage of Lawson that I can find. This article needs a lot of improvement. If this article is deleted, it will likely be eligible for recreation if he plays for IFK Göteborg since coverage will likely be more in depth. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played any professional match yet. No international caps as well. ƬheStrike Σagle 13:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Should be deleted already. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - ƬheStrike Σagle 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Ivanović

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

Failed WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 21:24, 7 January 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 January 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per nom. MbahGondrong (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source listed confirms that he played for Zeta prior to Montenegrin independence when the club played in the Serbia and Montengro SuperLiga which was fully pro (see WP:FPL under Serbia), meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a fully professional league and meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played football fully professionally. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NFOOTY despite needing a lot of work. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully professional league. IJA (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion is closed early because there is no chance that it will reach a consensus to delete or even merge the article.

Although this deletion discussion is not a vote, the count of opinions currently stands at 74 keep, 24 merge and 14 delete opinions. Under these extraordinarily clear circumstances, an admin could close the discussion with a "delete" outcome only if mandatory reasons for deletion (such as copyright violations) had been advanced. That is not the case; this is rather a discussion about the notability of the slogan independently from the related event, about which people may disagree in good faith. In such cases, the closing admin has very limited leeway to weigh arguments in favor of the one or the other side. Moreover, given the ongoing coverage of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and its consequences, it is unlikely that media interest in the slogan will diminish and that this will cause a significant number of editors to change their minds and advocate deletion.

Because of this, I conclude that there is at this time a solid consensus to keep the article based on what is perceived as its independent notability. This does not preclude later merger proposals and discussions on the article talk page. Sandstein 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis Charlie

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}}.

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

WP:RECENTISM gone mad. Whatever content at this article that is notable belongs at the Charlie Hebdo shooting article. We don't need two articles on what is essentially the same subject. We certainly don't need a compilation of the various people that used this slogan. That strikes me as a form of advocacy. Since my unilateral merge was reversed, I believe that AfD is the only way forward. What's more, it fails WP:NEO. I'm not saying that the slogan itself is not notable in the context of the shooting, because it is, but it isn't notable on its own, and is not suitable for a standalone article. It also contains a large amount of WP:Original research about "free speech". RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion. In my opinion it's worthy because it's not just general "#rip" sympathy for the victims, but it seems to be a worldwide motto that is representing support for free speech and condemnation for threats by extremists. A comparable article would be Hands up, don't shoot. Wikimandia (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it pass WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for WP:ADVOCACY of "free speech". "Hands up, don't shoot" has been around enough to be discussed in secondary sources, and also pertains to multiple events. This is a slogan for one event that happened today. Its notability has not been established, independent of the shooting. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is biased toward advocacy, then it should be edited to make it more neutral. If it quickly fades away then I would agree it should be merged into the original article, but for now it is not hurting anything to leave it. Wikimandia (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is harming Wikipedia, because it is an example of what Wikipedia is not. That's not how it works. If an article doesn't belong, it doesn't belong. WP:RECENTISM is wrong, as we are not a newspaper or a blog, and we are certainly not a dictionary of random political slogans either. RGloucester — ☎ 21:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not harming Wikipedia. Lulz. This is not a "dictionary" type entry and the recentism page is not "anti-recentism". From the WP:Recentism page: Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer. ~~Keep for one month and then revisit.~~ Wikimandia (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the world in reverse. First show notability, then create an article (or !vote keep). --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple independent sources that discuss Je suis Charlie, GNG is not an obstacle here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

There are, but they do not discuss it independently of the shooting itself. Most of them are commentary pieces that are not usable as RS. Please note the "presumed" bit of the GNG. RGloucester — ☎ 23:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't take the reasons behind this proposed deletion very seriously. A lot of talk about WP:Recentism but really it has already become massive with countless sources and discussion. If we want to take WP:Recentism seriously then maybe we should delete Charlie Hebdo shooting? Also the WP:NEO argument is even poorer, no way is this a dictionary entry! And by having an article we are not advocating it, just like we are not advocating Islam. Also the comments suggest that at the very least a merge would be more appropriate than deletion. I think what needs to be discussed is how it relates to WP:GNG, which for me it passes with flying colors. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With events less than a day old, it is presently impossible to determine if this slogan will endure beyond the current events. It certainly has the potential to become an enduring slogan and enter the public lexicon. I would wait a month before making a decision on keeping or deleting, and then reassess at that point. 129.98.230.131 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have the "Je suis Charlie" image on my userpage, but that is another matter. At this point, it is impossible to say whether "I am Charlie" will have any lasting impact. The Paris attack is barely 12 hours ago, creating this article is absolutely premature. We have wikinews for current events, WP is not a newspaper. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A good amount of the "information" on this article was copied from the Charlie Hebdo shooting article itself. Unless we can get more substantial, original information for the hashtag, I am in support of deletion. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it belongs in the shootings article. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Against Deletion This movement has proven to be a global phenomenon, as a movement all its own. The cause's message is not exclusive to the shooting concerned; it's the message that free expression is essential in western democracy, and subsequently deserves its own article. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the slogan peters out and is not repeated five days from now then it would be difficult to regard it as a "movement" or a "global phenomenon." 129.98.230.131 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that a "phenomenon" or "movement" has managed to come together in less than a day. That's called WP:CRYSTAL, something we're not. Anyway, I don't see any sources for this "free speech" nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't believe something can be a movement or phenomenon in less than a day is simply your opinion. And again, WP:CRYSTAL does not support that argument. That would relevant only if Curlymanjaro had said it WOULD grow to be a phenomenon. Wikimandia (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and redirect to shootings article. Please think about what serves our readers best -- having a separate article on the slogan arising out of those rightfully protesting this atrocity doesn't make sense to our readership.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Against Deletion for Now~~ Ditto what Curlyman said. I added some info from an article that was slightly critical of the hashtag and Twitter activism in general. This offers a secondary perspective of the movement. The article is only a few hours old and more will be added. Then it can be properly evaluated. Wikimandia (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not impossible that in the fullness of time this may be a legitimate merge target, either to the main page about the shooting, or a detail page about the resultant social events, but right now the Je suis Charlie slogan/hashtag/meme appears to be a significant entity worthy of it's own article. The discussions above point out quite correctly that Je suis Charlie speaks to more than the shooting of 7 January, expressing support for the fundamental ideals of free speech, which is not to be gainsaid by violence and threat of violence. Je suis Charlie is subject of independent discussion, and relates to other social movements against violence, such as Draw Mohammed Day, and Not In My Name. It is also part of the social media activist landscape of the current decade. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC).
Keep Per Rich Farmbrough. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Cultural impact cannot be defined at this stage. Add it to the incident's article, and as the landscape develops either split it back into here (once it's stood the test of a few weeks/remains notable) or phase out coverage. Gigitrix (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my mind RGloucster's nomination is just as guilty of recentism. This is a genuine article sourced extensively about an important issue that is more than just about one terrorist attack. I believe that any votes above which just name policies (e.g. according to BLAH...) should be discounted. If you think it should be kept then argue why. If you think it should be deleted then argue your point. Do not just name policies. This policy naming garbage is one of the biggest reasons why few readers of Wikipedia become editors and why most editors quickly disappear after making a few edits.--XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 23:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this project is based on policy, not based on my or your personal opinion on this matter. If anything, we need more strict enforcement of policy, to stop incidents like this one from occurring. This is not the place for polemics, or for advocacy of ideas. This is an encylopaedia. It is impossible to determine whether this is an "important issue" without analysis in reliable scholarly sources, which we do not have on the day of this shooting. There is no notability independent of the incident, now, and hence this should be covered in that article, which is not even long. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100 percent with XANIA. Give specific reasons why and don't just point to policies that are 6,000 words and don't clearly support the argument. Wikimandia (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RGloucester. Not independently notable enough to warrant its own article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. I don't like seeing hashtags get wikipedia pages on principle - we can merge the other ones too - and if something is notable enough as a hashtag campaign, focus should be placed on the off-twitter places the hashtag's users organized with the tag only used to provide evidence of the campaign's size and name, regardless of the amount of slow news days articles involved. If this becomes a lasting anti-censorship or anti-terrorism or islamophobic movement discussing more things than a single shooting or too big to contain in the prior article, it can be spun off later. Birdboy2000 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charlie Hebdo shooting - I would be alright with Keeping this, but I feel that it should be merged with the events that lead to the creation of the hashtag. We have several articles about hashtags, so I feel that an article about a hashtag can be made. However, to cite a similar AfD discussion about an article on a hashtag, "(...) The information in this article is worth saving and augmenting, but a separate article is not necessary. (...)" I feel that this article does not have enough to stand on its own, but it can help another article stand a bit stronger. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - it's been less than 24 hours, too soon to say this hashtag isn't notable. Let's leave it a few days. If it dies down, this article should be merged into the main one on the shootings. If it continues to receive media attention over a longer period, a separate article can be justified. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be too soon to say whether this slogan *will become* notable, but it's right now it's obviously not. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the attacks. The slogan is searchable, but it is specifically tied to the incident. If it does grow past that a week from now, then we can talk about a separate article, but right now it doesn't need it and overly duplicative of the attack article. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ I'm continuing to follow this hashtag and see if I can find any notability beyond the usual outrage/sympathy for the victims. I've found quite a few articles from journalists who are discussing its significance as "battle cry" against recent trends toward censorship and threats to free speech. I think that adds a secondary perspective beyond who changed their Twitter avatar, etc. Will add to the article. Wikimandia (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voted already, see below. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now for at least a month. Currently many protests under that slogan are rising, so IMO it's better to keep it alive for a while and then decide to merge it or not. Valentinmilev (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Valentinmilev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, or merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. The "Je suis Charlie" article says very little other than what's already in the article "Charlie Hebdo shooting" as well as some trivial mentions. The protests under that slogan are related wholly to these attacks. There is no "keep for now", it's either keep, delete, or merge. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Struck; see below. Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What we don't need is this AFD as the nomination tells clearly that this was the result of a frustrated merger and so is improper per WP:SK. I agree that this is recentism as the whole thing is obviously breaking news but WP:NOTNEWS is obviously a dead letter as the topic was rushed onto the main page immediately. Time will tell what aspects endure and we should just let the various strands develop without heavy-handed disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I find the "wait a month to see if it's notable" arguments do not resonate with me. We shouldn't allow content that does not meet guidelines to have its own page while we wait for things to be sorted out. Merge for now, if it blows up, split it. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ For those of you who keep saying the article just has the same info as the Charlie Hebdo shooting page, please check it again. The article is now significantly longer and contains information that is not in the article on the attack. It includes perspectives embracing the slogan and also criticism. It's a work in progress naturally; I feel the parts about who (temporarily) changed their avatars etc should eventually be removed, as they don't have long-term meaning. Thank you. Wikimandia (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You voted already. Three times, in fact. I'm indenting all your comments except the first time you voted. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, sorry about that. My intention was not to vote multiple times. Wikimandia (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting --0x010C (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as the article contains a number of RS that primarily discus the hashtag and surrounding issues (e.g. the efficacy of Twitter-activism), rather than focussing on the shooting itself and only mentioning the hashtag in passing. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 00:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I just saw a huge collage of magazine/newspaper front pages from around the world about the massacre. A few of the covers are just black with the white words, "Je Suis Charlie." There are also more and more photos of demonstrations with people holding the sign with the phrase. The notability seems quite clear and not just a Twitter fad. Wikimandia (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of people with Je suis Charlie inscribed on signs do not indicate notability. Please see WP:NEO. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw WP:NEO. Once again WP:Blaaaah. Nothing there that indicates it is not notable. Tens of thousands of people across the world marching and gathering holding identical signs with the same three words, and you don't think those three words are notable? Your opinion and a weak one. Wikimandia (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies. It is not my fault you are either refusing to read them, or cannot comprehend them. This is an encylopaedia. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge for now. If it blows up, it blows up. But that would be WP:CRYSTAL. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It has already blown up big time. What are you talking about? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Masem. The phrase is a significant aspect of the reactions to the attack, and a completely plausible search term. I think it is best covered in the main article unless and until the term starts living a life of its own. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Article gives no rationale for notability other than having been referred to as a hashtag for solidarity. The Arabic Nun letter used for solidarity with persecuted Christians is only a section, but it at least has slightly different connotations than the hashtag, which has so far remained simply a hashtag. Simply mentioning it in a Reactions section should be enough. 9³ 07:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There's hardly anything to say about this slogan at present other than that it exists. The entire article is just listing occurrences of the slogan. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
mergeShould be mentioned in the reaction section of the main page of the shootingLukasonny (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Wikipedia:Recentism is just an essay, it's not a strong argument nor strong reason for deletion.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 08:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete but any other decision is OK by me. These things are better decided by editors dealing with the subject matter rather than by people at AFD. Thincat (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article was created probably too soon, and not less nominated for deletion too soon. At least a dozen days would be helpful to clarify the real significance of the subject. I suspect it is notable, but now IMO it is quite soon to have a clear opinion too. At least it should merged and redirected, anyway, it is an obvious search term. Cavarrone 09:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I think we ought to take a wait and see approach. If the phenomenon spreads globally over a sustained period, I think it'll warrant a separate article. However, if it tones down a bit, then a merge would be more appropriate. Right now I don't see any harm letting the separate article stand until a future course of action is decided. Lasersharp (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong support for wait - time will tell as to whether the phenomenon remains notable and relevant over time - even a few days may or may not see the specific slogan/tag continue or dissapear like so many things do. The endurance of the specific movement of support for the issue/tragedy will be the telling, lets see what even a week might do to the issues arising from the tragedy satusuro 11:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge can be mention in two or three sentences at the other article. -Koppapa (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charlie Hebdo shooting. At the moment, "Je suis Charlie" is covered in sources exclusively together with "Charlie Hebdo shooting", not on its own. This phenomenon is notable, and should be covered in Wikipedia, but in the "Charlie Hebdo shooting" article, not in a separate article. If, in the future, it becomes separately notable, a separate article should be (re-)created. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Wait - This is a social phenomenon which most likely has enough long-term notability to have its own article. - Anonimski (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The enormous MSM and activist coverage of this suggests that the tag is here to stay. Such one-offs as Ich bin ein Berliner and You're no Jack Kennedy have survived, and I think this is no different. We can always revisit this if we are shown by history to be mistaken. Ringbark (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too soon to make a decision -- needs time to develop -- keep for now per the policy WP:PRESERVE. Micromanagement is a drag on innovation. -- GreenC 13:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and redirect to shootings article. It is just a slogan. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as this is such a major incident that there is a strong possibility that the slogan 'je suis Charlie' will remain notable, and that at some future point younger readers might consult Wikipedia for an explanation of it. AlanD1956 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an enormous social media message which has gone more than just viral, and is definitely notable. Mrnetbean (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)— Mrnetbean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Whether or not the Je suis Charlie mantra becomes a campaign, it already merits inclusion as a social media phenomenon that has quite clearly gripped all of society in the immediate wake of this terrible atrocity. For that reason alone, it meets notability criteria by the bucket load. I'd just like to add that I think the decision to mark as speedy delete sticks in my craw as being incredibly insensitive to those who have lost loved ones in this attack. Mediavalia ^talk 15:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now~~ - I am always an advocate of waiting on these type of things. It hurts nothing leaving this here for a month and seeing whether or not coverage continues. For now the article is certainly got enough coverage to hop over WP:GNG. We aren't psychics, we can't say this will not have continued coverage so to delete it now is just causing extra work for people if it does continue, and if it doesn't, then it can be deleted with out hassle (even better if this had never been nominated until some time had passed, so we could know at the AfD if it was actually long term. One thing I hate is people rushing things to AfD). This is especially right now a topic many will be googling, so having it on Wikipedia is good for the website (see the stats here). JT_dale^Talk~ 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hear, hear! My sentiments entirely. Mediavalia ^talk 15:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - I'm changing my vote from 'for now' because this has gotten ridiculous. The popularity of this thing has exploded over night, and that has in my mind made it eternally notable. The enormous number of tweets is just one thing now. Demonstrations across the planet. The creation of cartoons by some of the worlds most notable cartoonists. The adding of this to some of the worlds most visited websites. Building it into the WHOIS of french websites. Reports from every possible conceivable newspaper and news program. The New York Times, the Herald Sun, Washington Post, the London Times, Times of India, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN. If if is a news publication today, it has reported on this. JT_dale^Talk~ 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's time to close this one down if we're to believe that #JeSuisCharlie has become one of the most popular hashtags in Twitter's history. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable already and likely to be notable in the future as a slogan in future events. Alaney2k (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Alaney stated. Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because is has become a world thing now. Lotje (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the chief complaint is that it's a duplicate of the Charlie Hebdo shooting article. It's not. The phrase itself has become a phenomenon. Happy monsoon day 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic was not so notable when the article was first created, but it definitely is now. CodeCat (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - By itself it's a non-notable meme. It needs to go in the shooting article.--WaltCip (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant information with the main article on the shootings. (Alternatively, I would support the creation of an article about the international reaction to the shootings.) This is nothing more than a 'hashtag' created in response to an important event, with no apparent significance of its own. How will this slogan/image have any significant impact?-RHM22 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, having waited to see the developments, I believe the slogan and associations with it have easily crossed the threshold of notability. The body of explanation required would be too long for the shootings page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - It seems clear that this has already become notable. EastTN (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable phrase for the defense of free speech, while their messages are not identical, their social media use could be compared to #illridewithyou, but x3 in usage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure exactly what your rationale is for making the comparison, but 'illridewithyou' is currently nestled in the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis article, as part of the 'Reactions' section.-RHM22 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is that it is like #illridewithyou, but is 5x more famous and has 5x the coverage, therefore, while both are hashtags (#illridewithyou and #jesuischarlie), it looks that #jesuischarlie is notable, and #illridewithyou is not. I hope that makes sense. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes; I don't necessarily agree with that rationale, but I understand what you mean.-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I voted delete yesterday, but it is apparent that there will be no consensus to delete. I recommend an admin speedy close this as hopelessly no-consensus for the time being. It doesn't make sense to have deletion tags on the article when things are too heated.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be speedily closed per WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". If it's left open, then it should be closed as Keep as the notability of the topic is extensive. Here's a selection of headlines:

"Thousands chant 'je suis Charlie' at Fed Square" — The Age
"'Je suis Charlie' goes global" — Al Jazeera
"Je suis Charlie! The cry of defiance" — Daily Mail
"'Je suis Charlie' trends as people refuse to be silenced by Charlie Hebdo gunmen" — Daily Mirror
"Vigils across Europe declare 'We are Charlie'" — Financial Times
"Stand up for press freedom by wearing a 'Je suis Charlie' T-shirt" — The Guardian
"#JeSuisCharlie hashtag used across the world to show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo shooting victims" — The Independent
"#JeSuisCharlie Social media shows support for satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo" — Metro
"‘Je Suis Charlie’ message unites the globe after Paris attack" — New York Post
"'Je Suis Charlie' Message Goes Viral After Paris Attack" — New York Times

Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't come close to being a speedy keep. There's nothing to suggest that RGloucester created this to solve a dispute, and even if he had, this would probably still be a a valid AfD anyway. That said, this will probably be closed without consensus, based on its current state.-RHM22 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination tells us plainly that the AFD was started, "since my unilateral merge was reversed". The nominator failed to discuss the matter at the article's talk page and didn't start a proper merge request per WP:MERGE. Instead he rushes over here to get the page deleted when he doesn't get his way - a blatant abuse of process contrary to WP:SK, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:BEFORE, &c. The nominator has form as Jimbo had to step in to revert another blatant abuse of process recently. Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was explaining that first he did a unilateral merge, then seeing that there was not a clear consensus opened a discussion instead. Both the merge and nomination were for the same reasons, which he outlines in his comment. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. This topic is related to the shooting, and belongs as a properly written section within that article rather than a bloated and unnecessary child article. Reso lute 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Charlie Hebdo shooting page is 113K and seems far more bloated than the page in question, which is just 14K. Per WP:SIZE, this page is fine and it's the other one which needs attention. Andrew D. (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Charlie Hebdo shooting there will obviously be public demonstrations over this sort of tragedies, having a hashtag associated with it is not particularly notable. Maybe if there were an article called "Reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting" it would get a bigger mention. Loganmac (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may actually be a good compromise solution, since one key objection raised to this article's existence is that it doesn't exist as a standalone topic. Assuming there's enough material for two articles, the "X" / "Reactions to X" distinction is far more reasonable (and has better precedent) than "X" / "Some Twitter slogan about X". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge O750aa (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)— O750aa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator. The main article (Charlie Hebdo shooting) is sufficient to deal with the topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Encyclopedias do not have entire articles about such slogans. A section in the Charlie Hebdo shooting article is enough. Else articles on all other kinds of slogans (e.g. "I am Malala") may also crop up. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted, there is an article on Hands up, don't shoot. That would seem to be an appropriate precedent for this one. EastTN (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gérald Garitan (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are also supposed to give a concrete reason. This is a discussion, not voting. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a wikipage for Ich bin ein Berliner. Je suis Charlie is of equivalent magnitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaDare1587 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — VirginiaDare1587 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, or merge: A sourceable phrase that is a likely search term. p b p 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reason that opponents of the statement would claim victory if the article were deleted. -Mardus (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Je suis Charlie is a separate subject/topic from `Charlie Hebdo'. It stands alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.128.228 (talk • contribs) — 188.221.128.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep, for the reason that the subject stands alone. -markS (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.128.228 (talk) [reply]

Repeat vote struck. p b p 22:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The phrase might be forgotten in the future, that's true: it is precisely the role of an encyclopedia to keep such an information. Sapphorain (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~/Wait~~ A clear case of a premature article followed by a premature deletion proposal. It may develop into something just as notable as "Ich bin ein Berliner".. or it may not. Time will tell.
Anyway, given the events in Vincennes and Dammartin of January 9th, I very much doubt that "Je suis Charlie" will ever be considered as just a temporary buzz, as this has become the slogan symbolising the united response of French people (and others) to the worst terrorist attack in France in more than half a century.. --Azurfrog (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Developing? Hafspajen (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hafspajen, definitely developping, with a recognition now far exceeding the French borders. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Event recent, this slogan is clearly a symbol of this historical moment and of the emotion shared in the whole world. It should have its own article for being a symbol of the freedom of speech and not only a reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Pymouss Let's talk 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Charlie Hebdo shooting. This topic only makes sense as part of that event. There's no need to have a separate article on it. It is also not Wikipedia's purpose to right great wrongs or serve as a platform for protests. There is no indication that this phrase will be anything other than a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. Modest Genius ^talk 00:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Usually I am against these sorts of articles, but one really cannot deny that the phrase itself is the subject of direct, focused commentary in reliable sources, as shown by others above. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete there really hasn't been any time to establish any significance of this phrase as anything other than a small part of the attacks. Unless this phrase becomes something referred back to, or needs extensive coverage, it doesn't need to be an article. Half Hat 01:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG as others have stated. Dream Focus 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability test as a phrase that has been reported around the world in all reliable media sources.Cathar66 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a widely used phrase that our readers will want information about. It passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for the present. Plainly this is notable, but there are reasonable arguments on both sides, particularly that it should be part of the article on the shootings. But deleting it now could send a confused message about "Whether Wikipedia cares". Imaginatorium (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge This is notable enough to be included in the article on the attacks, but not currently notable enough for its own article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability indicated by sources. Everyking (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably one of the most important events of 2015 alongside the notability of the phrase that has united the western world. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 07:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why bother removing? It's not harming anything and is an important phrase in the world right now. And, it contains unique information that the Charlie Hebdo article doesn't contain. 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.20.198 (talk) — 95.141.20.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep for now -- attempting to merge it into the Charlie Hebdo shooting article resulted in vastly too much of the article being devoted to the slogan, giving it disproportionate emphasis and detracting from the coverage of the main subject of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be to trim out a lot of the fluff when merging, condensing it to one or two paragraphs in a "Reactions" section. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please. A lot of people encounter the slogan with no explanation, so "JE SUIS CHARLIE" is what they're going to put in the search box. I would say "If not keep, definitely merge into and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting", but The Anome, above, makes a good point about such a merge tilting the article too far off balance. ←Ben Culture (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a double entry with Charlie Hebdo Shooting, it is a symbol emerged as a result of this shooting and expressing the freedom of speech whether you like Charlie Hebdo or not, it means I'm free to speak.FromSpace (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily enough WP:GNG for its own standalone article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a social media phenomenon and deserves its own entry. It's also useful. I'm a professor of Digital Culture and was just called by a journalist wondering about the origin of #jesuischarlie. I was very happy to find such a thorough Wikipedia entry about it, complete with links to media interviews (in French, so not immediately very accessible to a Norwegian journalist) with the originator of the slogan. This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia documents well, and deleting it would be outrageous. Lijil (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no question (based on the usual benchmark of multiple non-trivial sources) that this slogan is notable in its own right and, per many arguments above, merging in back to main article on the shooting would lead to that article (itself still subject to regular updates as events unfold) having to devote too much space to the slogan and thus becoming somewhat unbalanced. Possibly in the future, when this becomes history, one long article with "Je Suis Charlie" on a redirect will suffice but for now it makes sense to maintain separate articles, if only to prevent the one from distracting from the other. A1octopus (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand why this was nominated originally, but in the time since, this has certainly become a notable subject. The main article is bloated as hell as is, and this is a very good subject to cut down on some of the content over there. Far from redundant and definitely not a duplicate, I think this article will only continue to get even more notable in the coming weeks. Regardless of whether or not that happens, it is plenty notable now. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 12:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been asked several times what the meaning of it is, and Wikipedia is a good instrument to satisfy the need for interested readers. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At the moment this is not notable outside of the context of the shootings themselves and currently remains a reactions from the masses to them. I see a strong connection between the 2 topics and having a section inside the shootings article itself seems best to me. CaptRik (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was googling what does it mean and this article has given me the answer. Think about the reader. Merged somewhere would not help so much as it would be more hidden. Wikipedia, don't take your "notability" so seriously. It's often counter-productive. I was often searching for something and found that it has been deleted from Wikipedia. --109.81.209.190 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's now obviously an important meme in its own right, and is being copied elsewhere (see Hypercacher). Ericoides (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is important to let peoples to remember and understand what "Je suis Charlie" means, it is a historical event now, although the content can be re-written. 183.178.222.138 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear that this page is being used for advocacy by "free speech" advocates. Wikipedia is not WP:SOAPbox for advocacy. I see a lot of emotion in "Keep" voters, but an encyclopaedia is no place for emotion. The integrity of the encyclopaedia has been compromised. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I !voted to delete, stop with the air quotes around free speech. You're coming across as quite insulting, and on top of that, saying that the integrity of the encyclopedia is compromised is over-dramatic.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what an "air quote" is. I believe I used what are known as "inverted commas", which are used when one is quoting the words of others, as I was doing here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RGloucester here. What does any of that have to do with Wikipedia? We cover notable people, things and events, not things that are nice or that we agree with. Besides, this slogan would still be covered in the article, or (preferably to me) in a 'reactions' article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want to prove it is notable? It has been reported about by nearly every newspaper on Earth. It has been added to some of the worlds largest websites, built into the structure of French WHOIS, used as a slogan by thousands in physical protests, tweeted 3.4 million times. If this isn't notable, what is? JT_dale^Talk~ 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it was "not notable". I said that it was not notable apart from the shootings themselves, as an independent object, and hence should be covered in that article. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with WaltCip on the Scare quotes. It easily comes across as condescending, and whether it is as per intention is irrelevant to the fact that it should not belong in a civilized discussion. xertnevnI (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is more beneficial to the other page to have this text on a separate page so it doesn't detract from the article about the event itself. There seems to be enough reliable sources to indicate that the slogan itself is notable. Posts on this page by others have indicated that they have already found the Je Suis Charlie page useful as a place for information. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Now. There is potential that this will blow over quickly, in which case merging with the Charlie Hebdo Shooting may make good sense, but as the term is being frequently trended and searched right now, we should keep the wiki up for those who will reference it from a web search. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Obviously notable phrase. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable protest movement in itself nor a wider campaign on press freedom, but solely part of the international reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. It should be merged back into the page for that shooting. Zcbeaton (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a notable protest movement... This may not be a protest movement, but this is something that is noted by EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THIS PLANET!. Maybe not by a newspaper run by Boko Harem, but everybody else has covered this meme. Really everyone running a newspaper, in every country! How much more notability do you want? WP:GNG clearly states that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Your vote is also self-contradicting, because you bolded the "Delete" word, but then supported merging instead (and this forum is really not for resolving disputed merges.) jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dank article 79.67.253.38 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet slang, it means "awesome article". w.carter-Talk 23:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we have an article about this, surely we should also have something about #illridewithyou, which we don't. Moaz786 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moaz786: Um, see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've now seen a number of articles that make the case that the "Je suis Charlie" sentiment is wrong - that while the killings should be condemned, the media shouldn't identify itself with those who provoke for the sake of provocation. (The NYTimes has a summary of the debate here: [3]) I think that the debate over the "Je suis Charlie" slogan shows that there's more than enough coverage of the "Je suis Charlie" slogan and movement itself to justify an article.GabrielF (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for me it would be better to keep the article. Because due to IT and information spread nowadays "Je suis Charlie" motto tends to become some kind of a historical act. I will not be surprised if someday people over the world would search it separately from the main event it belongs to. Lara Rusnak, 10 January 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a redirect would do fine for that. Half Hat 02:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It seems to me that the term has got a pretty significant amount coverage. Enough that it would seem to pass WP:GNG. I do think the WP:RECENTISM argument carries some weight, but probably not enough to override the notability argument. And finally, an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; we do have a number of similar articles covering famous phrases (e.g. Hands up, don't shoot, The lady's not for turning). NickCT (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In the time that this AfD has opened, this has gained enough notability and news coverage on its own. Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now covered in depth, the article passes notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout for the nominator. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Such an obvious keep. This saying isn't going anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.36.40 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — 96.48.36.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep or Merge. Even if this slogan should disappear from media in a few weeks, it has still had a significant impact and coverage during the CHS to be mentioned somewhere in the WP. w.carter-Talk 10:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A number of people have made statements like "This is not a notable protest movement in itself nor a wider campaign on press freedom..." I came to the page because the slogan is all over Flickr. There are definitely more than 1,000 photos tagged with "JeSuisCharlie". That's a lot. See https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=jesuischarlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony999 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Tony999 (talk[reply]
Keep else wait I think it is already apparent that Je Suis Charlie has taken a life of its own, far bigger than the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and has become a strong statement in favor of freedom of speech. If people are not yet convinced then perhaps we should wait, but for me it already passes WP:GNG. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Terrorism, along with Boston Strong, into a new Anti-Terrorism Slogans sub-section under Responses. No matter how many times this slogan is displayed or recited, senseless murderers will not find a clue.
Keep It has certainly become very notable indeed. The sheer number of responses here alone show how well known it is.Jeppiz (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep RGloucester, I'd recommend you to take a breather and just accept that many Wikipedia policies go out the window with these types of slogans. Don't lose any sleep over it and just allow the exceptions. The article doesn't need any reason for inclusion other than the fact that it's a popular slogan. It's an easy vote for keep. It's catchy, it's cool, and people like it. Forget WP:NPOV, WP:Crystal, WP:Election, WP:Recentism, WP:Advocacy, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There's simply no need to follow any encyclopedic guidelines when this many people overwhelmingly vote for inclusion. It stays and that's it. Zup326 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zup326: AfD is not a vote. The results of AfDs are based on policy-based arguments, not simple votes and rationales of "it's cool". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why give this one person a hard time? The delete votes aren't "policy-based arguments" either, so why aren't you lecturing them? Everyking (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyking: I commented on this user's !vote because they we're trying to lecture others. And by the way, I want the article kept too. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre !vote. Zup326 seems to suggest that the article shouldn't be kept per policy, essentially agreeing with the rationale for deletion, but the !vote is a 'strong keep' because many people want to keep it? AmaryllisGardener is right to point out the flaws in that !vote, if for no other reason than to inform new editors that things like that aren't taken into consideration in an AfD.-RHM22 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what is also policy? WP:IAR. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wasn't trying to lecture anyone, if it came across that way. I merely addressed RGloucester because I like what he brings to the table. He's a nice guy who brings a lot of fair ideas to discussions. I only meant to provide an alternative viewpoint for him to consider this time around. I wish the best for him and hope he remains in high spirits regardless of the result here. All the best. Zup326 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per others--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ridiculous nomination and ridiculous discussion, even the nom seems to want to keep both the content and the name as a redirect, and we seem to have strong consensus that both should be kept. So that's a merge, not a deletion, and always was. I'd even oppose a merge, good topic and plenty of material, but to be even discussing this on AfD when deletion has no rationale and no support is ridiculous. No other word for it. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with merge/redirect per Masem, Resolute, and RHM22. Wait a month or two, and if it's still getting coverage independent of the attacks we can spin it back out. ansh666 06:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This topic makes little sense without the background of the attack itself. So the content is better in that article. BTW, the votes for Merge and Delete are invalid and should be treated as just merge, while Merge and Redirect is pointless since redirecting is part of merging Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rationale by the nominator. Its span is just reaction of the shooting and have not made any significance in worldwide press, countries. We do not have articles on "I am Malala" or "I'llridewithyou" and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Iniciativass (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What another ridiculous attempt to delete a perfectly good article. This is big enough to have it's own separate article. The information is relevant and important to anyone interested in researching on the shootings now and later on.--Joey (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes I do wonder about the mentality of people who seriously want this deleted. I feel like John MceEnroe "you cannot be serious?"... --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. The term has been cited in recent media but makes no sense without the attack. Indiuser (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. I would never have found it defined otherwise. 208.163.245.101 (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)— 208.163.245.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The article sheds light on an aspect entirely different from the shootings themselves. Shashwat986 → talk 12:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. With a FFS thrown in for good measure. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I was originaly going to vote for a merge when I saw that Yes We Can (slogan) but then I came upon Drill, baby, drill. This deletion request is ridiculous. Many slogans have their own pages on wikipedia and this is a notable, significant slogan. If we delete this one we must delete all of them.--76.111.48.47 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)— 76.111.48.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This is a world movement, with significant coverage from sources. --FocalPoint (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In fact I am shocked that Wikipedia is considering deleting. Je Suis Charlie is the most important development to happen in Europe since at least 1987. It is historical. Users should be able to find out about the movement simply by inputting these words. Have some pity for your users! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmeyer1884 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Cmeyer1884 (talk[reply]
I am strongly against deletion of the article. Not because of sympathy and so on but because it seems that "Je suis Charlie" has quickly become a slogan of solidarity, that is, a culturally important phenomenon. I even dare to presume that in the case of future attacks "Je suis X" or "I am X" ("X" being the name of the attacked organization, institution or group) would emerge again. Forms of solidarity can be a field of historical, political, cultural, and psychological interest - and study. 93.152.163.41 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)— 93.152.163.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep. This is a historical symbol of unity for freedom in speech and just Europe. 89.191.106.114 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there's another keep on the talk page. [[4]] Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously meets GNG. Sam ^Sing! 20:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure etc

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Je suis Charlie#Procedure etc. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defiance cycle ride

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

Don't see this meeting WP:NEVENT as well as WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk Page. Canol (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell, the talk page is empty. Do you plan to contest??Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Defiance_cycle_ride — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canol (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Canol: that is not the appropriate place to contest a deletion. Do so on the article's talk page. Qxukhgiels (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent coverage showing up on Google when I looked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my sweep of British media did not come up with any sources, but I am willing to change my view if sources can be found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage at a quick look. ƬheStrike Σagle 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. (Note: This nom was malformed in that an AfD tag was placed only on the article named in the heading; the similar articles included in the nom were not individually tagged. Nevertheless, I see no point in fixing the problem and relisting again—the articles all deal with particular numbered buses owned by the same transit line, and the consensus for deletion seems clear enough. Call it IAR.) Deor (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrans 4528–4535

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

Thanks aycliffe^talk 09:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These should probably be deleted or at least removed from article namespace as indiscriminate information; some of the references and possibly information in the articles may be suitable for the Unitrans article but the titles wouldn't be suitable as redirects. Peter James (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge all into Unitrans; the contents of all eight articles would be best served by a section in Unitrans.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that any of these individual buses is notable; these aren't routes but physical buses. Are we going to profile each uber car and driver, too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - This does seem "memorabilia" stuff, Not really seeing anything that can be Merged either. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Carlossuarez. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Zaffar

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

Not seems notable to warrant page. Saqib (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Surprisingly the only source I've found is [5] which isn't all that ideal, Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability I'll have to say delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of real notability. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom, going for speedy Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbs of the Republic of Macedonia

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

far too broad a topic, and includes a list of redlinked people Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lists like this can, of course, be limited to those with articles only, obviating the problem of breadth. However it's worth noting that the exact same list already appears in Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia so it isn't particularly necessary for it to also exist as a standalone article. Count me as delete for now unless a dedicated user comes along with special plans for this list. Keresaspa (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Good find - I'm withdrawing my nomination and instead putting a Speedy on it. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Grace (band). Of note is that the delete !vote states that "Any information in this article should be incorporated into The Grace, if it hasn't already been". Much of the content is not in the merge target. The nominator seconded merging to this target in the discussion, and a third user !voted to merge. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana & Sunday

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

No evidence of notability. Random86 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dana & Sunday are the two remaining members of The Grace (band). They are still The Grace, not a new group. The Grace itself is notable and were quite popular in the mid-2000s, before the onslaught of 1000s of new idol groups began. Any information in this article should be incorporated into The Grace, if it hasn't already been. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow missed the fact that they are a subgroup. I second merging this into The Grace (band). --Random86 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Random86 Asdklf; (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after plants

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

Since the List of U.S. counties named after animals was just Afd'd out of existence, this one should be too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, but really a trivial list. The names of counties, and the names of plant species, are not trivial. Putting them together like this is. You could make up this kind of list about almost anything. For instance, Songs named after body parts: "Piece of my heart", "I only have eyes for you", etc. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How about "Foot Loose" or "I like Big Butts" Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful. I might decide to start the article. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no policy reasons given for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. counties named after animals. What's the difference between plants and animals as far as notability is concerned? Has there been a policy change within the last day that would lead to a different outcome? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, one AfD has less than zero effect on another unless they are grouped together or the AfD created a Wikipedia wide policy consensus (something which rarely happens and hasn't happened here). It's always possible the other AfD was in error. Please state policy, please. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: I think what Clarityfiend is saying is "ditto the various arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. counties named after animals". I.e. various WP:NOT/WP:N issues rather than taking the result of that AfD to have implications for this. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable list topic. In other words, while there are sources showing that specific counties have been named after plants, I haven't found any at all that address the phenomenon of naming counties after plants (which is more or less the reason the animals-related list was deleted while e.g. List of U.S. counties named after U.S. Presidents was kept. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendronites; it's not particularly different from the animals list or "List of U.S. counties sharing names with their county seats". It's a valid list in the sense that it has clear inclusion criteria, that it's neutral, etc., but in the absence of sources that discuss horticultural county naming or otherwise touch on this subject, we need to view it as trivia. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the !vote stating "good book title, but bas article title" was not considered for this close, because it does not provide a guideline or policy based rationale for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens Are Assholes

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, no reliable source coverage that I could find through Google. Everymorning talk 18:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic doesn't merit an article at this time as it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and the general notability guideline. MJ94 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good book title, but bas article title. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love the title, but this book just doesn't pass notability guidelines. There just isn't any coverage out there to show that this book is notable. It exists and can be purchased, but existing and availability do not give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let's close this, if only for a very practical reason: I have never seen such a division in an AfD, of content contributors, FA writers and reviewers, and other experienced editors on both sides. There is no way in which this is going to close as anything but "no consensus", unless one throws a supervote into the mix.

Having said that, a few more remarks. One SPI is brought up; a related one is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Whether it matters that there are socking allegations or not (and I think Lukeno94 pointed this way) is another question.

Allow me a remark or two, since I don't think I can get away with a supervote and a close as "delete", nor do I want to. I think the delete voters (those commenting on the coverage, that this is average sourcing, etc) have a point, and a rationale is found in WP:NTOUR. But this is an FA and that changes much: even if FA does not equal speedy keep (Fanny Imlay, anyone").. WP:FAR has been suggested as a possible venue, and I agree that a careful review of the article, its sourcing, and perhaps its FA status is a good first stop. If the community agrees, for instance, that the article is not an FA, then that will make for a more streamlined deletion discusison.

In short, I'm closing this as No Consensus, without prejudice toward renonimation, and I thank you all for your input. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012 tour of She Has a Name

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}}.

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

A single tour of a regional dramatic production. It eludes me why this page should exist at all, as it appears to be promotional in bent. Nominated for deletion per WP:N and WP:NOT Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into She Has a Name. The play is notable, but the tour is not independently notable. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there is another article, curated exclusively by the same editor as this one, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_response_to_She_Has_a_Name. Said article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Wikipedia's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Should the critical response page be nominated for deletion separately?Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete as per above. Sometimes different venues/tours/casts can gain enough coverage to merit an article, but that does not mean that we need to have a separate article detailing this. Even the pretty widely covered Neil Patrick Harris performance/cast of Hedwig and the Angry Inch doesn't warrant its own article and I'd wager that it got just as much coverage, if not more than this tour did. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a standalone article about this as a separate topic from the main article on the play itself — as Tokyogirl79 correctly notes, except maybe in very exceptional circumstances which this play doesn't meet, we don't normally do separate articles about each individual production tour of a play. Again, the creator of this has a tendency to overdo this topic — the play itself absolutely satisfies our inclusion standards, but it's not so uniquely notable that it requires a special profusion of spinoff content significantly greater than virtually any other play in the history of theatre has ever been given. Contents are already adequately summarized at She Has a Name#2012 tour with no need to merge anything else from here, so while redirect would be acceptable I'd actually prefer to just delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've long viewed the collection of articles on this topic with dissatisfaction. This one, in particular, is a dramatic example of undue weight. A regionally-performed fringe theater production, regardless of the poignancy of its topic or the handful of minor awards it managed to receive, simply does not warrant spin-off articles on tour years (doubly especially here, when there's not a significant history of the play's performance outside of this tour). Even for world-famous topics like The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), the individual productions and tours do not warrant their own pages, and quite rightly so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With somewhat wider discussion here, I want to clarify my comments a bit. There are two reasons, in general, why subtopics get their own pages. First, if the core topic is too long, sections can be spun out to their own pages out of readability concerns. Second, if the subtopic is the subject of independent coverage such that it meets notability criteria on its own, then it warrants a page from first principles. When neither are true, we don't; that's part of what is implied by "notability is not inherited". Neither of these is true here. The core article is not too long to exist as a single topic—or, at least, would not be so if pared down appropriately. And the 2012 tour is not by any stretch of the imagination a separate topic from the play itself. Go ahead, look at the sources in the article. The reviews of the 2012 showings never talk about how these 2012 productions are somehow different from the (much more limited) 2011 productions. They are simply reviews of the play, written in the various (mostly local) newspapers where it was shown during that year.

This got through FA (with considerably difficulty, I'll note; it passed on the 3rd nomination, with what is not, historically-speaking, a well-attended discussion) because on its face, it's the sort of thing FAC encourages: exhaustively researched and with oodles of references. I know; I review at FAC when my schedule permits, and try my best to write for it as well. But FAC is poorly equipped to deal with structural questions such as should this article have existed in the first place. It's tooth fairy science. There's no separate topic here; there never was. Rather, this (and the critical reception article) are an effort to spread the topic of one small, mostly regionally-performed piece of fringe theater into a broader topic. A substantial amount of the content is duplicated between the three articles, as are a substantial number of the references, and for good reason: there should only be one topic here to begin with. Go read the parent article, and pretend there weren't "See also" links to its two subtopics whatsoever. There's nothing there that wants for comprehensiveness, nothing that should be merged in, even if some could be. And I'd be surprised if more than a handful of ultra-local references weren't already there as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have two or three articles by the same user on what is really a small local play, obviously serving as promotional fluff. I don't even think a merge is necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, existing WP:FA quality article. Significant secondary source coverage over time. — Cirt (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't read the article, so I'm not going to vote. This article is 12k of readable text; there are FAs that are less than half that length. The She Has a Name article is 29kb of readable text; if the two were combined, there is likely significant overlap, so the resulting article would be significantly less that 29kb + 12kb = 41kb (background would be duplicated, and there would be a summary of the tour in the main article). That's not long enough an article to require splitting. The fact that it has been under the eyes of a group of FAC reviewers should not be taken lightly, but nor should it be taken as an irreversible judgement of God. I'm imagining the articles could be merged with no information loss—whether it should I'll leave to others to decide. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:FA article; obviously passes notability. Should not be merged because of the independence of the subject matter, plus the length issues (including the numerous citations). This isn't merely a simple tour, it's an award-winning production with discussion panels, awareness-raising, awards, and so forth. Lastly, not sure what an editor who has been on Wikipedia exactly one day is doing nominating a Featured Article for deletion, plus nominating another article by the same editor for deletion, plus gutting another article created by the same editor. Seems like some sort of personal vendetta. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, or Delete and redirect if merging adds too much detail - I'm sorry, but this being an FA article doesn't give it a free pass; not even remotely. I look at this article, I see things like Audiences reacted with deep emotion as the play toured.[63] Standing ovations were common.[64][65], and I wonder to myself; how on earth is this a featured article? My main feeling is that this article is not only overtly promotional, it also struggles to generate notability for the tour. All I'm seeing are tonnes and tonnes of reviews for the play, but how much commentary on the tour itself is there? The answer appears to be simple; not a great deal. Not only that, but I see a great degree of reference bombardment in here; let's just take one reference I looked at from the reviews section, [6], and it gives all of three sentences. Not once does it mention the show being on tour. And what is the reference linked to in the text? When Kooman's play was performed in the Montreal Fringe Festival alongside such other plays as The No Bullshit History of Canada and Fucking Stephen Harper: How I Sexually Assaulted the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada and Saved Democracy, the Montreal Gazette called She Has a Name a "well-crafted, issue-oriented play" that stood in contrast to the festival's "standup comedy, burlesque and navel-gazing solo shows". Exactly where does it say any of that? Answer; it doesn't. The quotation given doesn't exist in the article I'm looking at, and there's certainly not a smidgen of comparison between the shows. It's very rare that I question FA reviewers... but I am doing here. I wouldn't even see this as a GA regardless of the notability. So, to summarise; it's an overly fluffed-up article that never establishes the notability of the tour. I strongly suggest that anyone voting "Keep, it's an FA and has loads of refs so must be notable" actually reads the article, and checks out the refs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are issues with the article itself, then perhaps it should go to WP:FAR first. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If notability wasn't a question, then yes, you're obviously correct. However, my !vote was showing anyone who !voted keep based on the number of references, and the fact it was an FA, that doing so was a bit daft. It also gives a general analysis of how little notability this tour has, and how several sources are misrepresented in blatant ways. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the sources and you'll see that they absolutely do not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all of those sources are telling me that, while at first glance seeming like too much, it's just right for the amount of coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All touring productions of all plays always generate at least this much coverage. This one is in no way special in that regard. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could easily be an argument for aicles like this for all touring productins of all plays. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a poor one. With vanishingly few exceptions (of which this article contains none), reviews, criticism, and commentary are not about the individual productions on their merits, but about the play itself. Even the most famous, most widely-performed modern stage performances such as Cats and Phantom of the Opera have never received that treatment (although their articles do list the various productions and discuss differences where relevant), because the different productions, in this context, are routine. That's most certainly true of regionally-performed Canadian fringe theater. It was performed in 2011. It was performed other places in 2012. All of that is part of the topic of the play, not a thing unto itself. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was only pointing out the fallacy in the argument: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Whether the article itself deserves to exist should be judged on its own merits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferably or redirect at best, per Tokyogirl79, Bearcat, Lukeno94, Squeamish Ossifrage, Roscelese and others. Likewise, should Andrew Kooman be a "good topic" with three articles on this one play, and a stub article on an "young-adult novel"? EChastain (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of spinoff content about his works, regardless of whether it's warranted or excessive, has no bearing on whether his main BLP meets "good article" standards or not — so the quality assessments of that article are in no way affected by questions about whether this related but distinct spinoff article warrants inclusion or not. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate The creator of this article Neelix, an editor with nine years experience and many articles to his name, retired a week ago stating he was 'the target of a very high level of trolling'. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns where he claims to be the 'subject of an attack'. It should be investigated if this AfD is not part of that alleged attack, certainly in light of the nominators editing record. It is a new account who started of last week by culling the content of another article which Neelix created (see 1, also note the preceding similar content culling by another newly created account Yaktaur). It has the hallmarks of sockpuppetry. --Wolbo (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's little doubt that the nominator is marginal at best; however, they do have an extremely valid point here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect I read this article, and checked out some of the references. It's puffed up and has a taint of coatrack.→StaniStani 02:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Send to Wikipedia:Featured article review~~. I am skeptical that this article should exist in the first place, as the tour should normally be covered only as part of the play's article; however, it doesn't seem appropriate to me for an article to go from featured article status to being deleted directly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of FAR is to determine if an article no longer meets the FA criteria, not to determine if it should exist at all. If the consensus here is keep, the article is eligible to remain an FA. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my recommendation to Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. However, if the article is kept, I think it should be sent to WP:FAR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely agree with that. It's just way too promotional and bloated to be a FA, and I seriously doubt it's really a GA at this point. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - the main article already has a 2012 tour section which adequately covers the encyclopedic information about the tour that is separate from the play. --DHeyward (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is something to be said about overforking. This could easily be just a section in the main article rather than its own thing. Doesn't show notability on its own - yes there's sources, but they're routine for a tour. Wizardman 13:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passage through FAC is community consensus that the article is compliant with Wikipedia's standards, including notability. While notability is not explicitly referenced in WP:WIAFA, I believe that the requirement for high-quality reliable sources (which this has) plus the requirement that it remain focused on the main topic combine to almost inevitably satisfy WP:GNG.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is something suspicious going on. Putting aside for a moment the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and join others in condemning the notability of this article and the other related AfD article, I am suspicious of the motivations of the nominator, who appears to be a sockpuppet (possibly of 184.161.25.16; Yaktaur, and Johnnydowns) and who may have a vendetta against articles like this one and a few others improved by Neelix (an experienced and prolific editor and administrator who improved other featured articles on this topic and who apparently retired after enduring wikihounding). As for the notability of this article, I believe it is notable because a) I have actually read the article and see how it expands on the knowledge in the section of its main article, b) it is part of a featured/good topic, c) it is a featured article (after three tries) as recognized by other competent editors, and d) it is considered notable by the high number of external sources (I have spot checked them). Let us not cause an injustice against an undeserved article that was improved by a respected, now former, Wikipedian. Prhartcom (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you've read any of the references properly based on this !vote. Almost all of them talk solely about the show and not the tour. As multiple people have stated, it being an FA does not give it a free pass whatsoever, and sheer weight of references isn't valid either. Nor is any perceived "injustice" relevant. Yes, the nominator is dodgy, but the actual discussion is a valid one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your comment; you are right, many sources are solely about the show, however I did find many (ten or more) sources that verify the notability of the tour. FYI, I wish to say that I respect the editors who recognize this article as FA, that I myself am not interested in this featured/good topic, and that regarding Neelix, he and I have crossed swords before and so I am not a fanboy, but I do respect him and trust him as a scholar. I still believe the article can exist on its own and as part of a well-researched topic. I hope someone can investigate the motivations of the nominator. Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks. John Bailey Owen (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (aka Johnnydowns)[reply]
At least you've bothered to go beyond "Keep, it's an FA therefore it's fine" Prhartcom, which several people haven't. I strongly disagree with your interpretation here, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With regards to the nominator, no evidence of actual sockpuppetry was presented at that SPI, and it was indeed archived as such. I agree with many people that the nominator is suspicious (and have said so), but I don't think throwing around the "sock" allegation as a reason to keep this is helpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The archived SPI did not mention this nominator (or Yaktaur) and was closed because Neelix retired. I just want to make sure we do not allow a sockpuppet to abuse an AfD (and other activities) in order to wikihound an experienced and productive editor into retirement. For the record, I do not know Neelix and as far as I know have had no interactions with him.--Wolbo (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wolbo, per my comment on your talk page regarding this SPI, I also noted that Nellix has recently received warnings on his talk page for inappropriate admin actions, such as WP:INVOLVED, per violating Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Template_protection on 4 January. See Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant and another on 6 January, see Pray tell where he blocked a newbie editor without warning. He was told about about WP:OWN and asked for an explanation for this edit to She Has a Name.[7] He retired on 7 January,[8] though maybe he is taking a wikibreak as suggested. So please don't be quick to blame sockpuppets. EChastain (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well writen ...all looks fine. -- Moxy (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no way this merits a standalone article. Can't believe we're even discussing such a thing. Puffed up unnecesary spinoff from puffed up article. 2015 tour of Hamlet, anyone? Get a grip. Article created and massaged by user devoted to the play. Puff. Not a valid wikipedia article in any way, shape or form.Begoon ^talk 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At worst — and I mean at very worst — this is over-the-top fanboy coverage of a more or less ordinary event in popular culture. This is pretty much descriptive of about half of the content of Wikipedia... It's actually a nice presentation of a regional theatre tour, a topic that passes GNG. That this article has been challenged is far more concerning to me than the fact that this article exists. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is absurd to think that 2 whole spinoff articles are warranted for such a minor play, especially when all the content on this page is summarized in a relatively more reasonable/restrained manner on the main article for the play itself. Even a merge isn't necessary since the 3 pages repeat each other so much, there's tons of overlap and what doesn't overlap is overly verbose hype language. There's just no need for this; it would be excessive even when applied to all but the few most famous and extensively covered works of literature or theater in history, and it's even more so when applied to such a fringe play. This is a total puff piece created by an editor who seems to have a history of creating similarly puffed-up, promotional features for his favorite celebrities, causes, and pieces of entertainment. Arguing that other content on Wikipedia is fanboy-created puff seems like an argument to delete other similar articles, not a reason to keep this one.Wobzrem (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the number of sources has been cited several times as evidence that the article should be kept, but keep in mind that most of the sources are very small local newspapers, and any regional production is likely to get similar amounts of coverage on that scale. We are not talking about widespread media coverage at a national or international level, or a larger cultural impact. We are talking about local newspapers covering what was likely the only theatrical production running in their various small towns at any given time - of course these tiny newspapers covered this play! Does this mean there should be an article for each yearly tour of every regional production of every play ever?Wobzrem (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Softlavender. Well referenced, feature article. Given its length and the length of the main article, appropriately split off from the main article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-referenced featured article. Easily passes WP:GNG. "It eludes me why this page should exist at all" and "fanboy coverage of a more or less ordinary event" are no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arguments for deletion under WP:NOT like "Absolutely no way this merits a standalone article" are just WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. The sole criterion is WP:GNG. It passes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, a lot of keep voters have arguments like WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIG, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES... troll elsewhere, please. It absolutely does not pass GNG; a thousand routine local sources wouldn't make it pass, let alone the handful that actually discuss the tour. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks will not advance your case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it to be a fairly accurate assessment of your comment, so no, it isn't a personal attack. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge any relevant bits to parent article. FA status does not relate to notability. I think Squeamish Ossifrage makes the most salient points about how this article gives undue weight to a marginal aspect of an otherwise notable topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we do, please 'do not merge. The She Has a Name article is already balanced. Merging further information from this one would just skew that. No need to destroy two articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: what do you mean by "balanced"? I fail to see how merging would what essentially be a very small amount of information (when the overlap is discarded) would "destroy two articles". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Basically everything has been covered by users smarter than myself, but I wanted to add a few things. Basically the only arguments in its favor revolve entirely around the fact that it is well sourced. I agree that the sourcing is meticulous and clearly required lots of research and hard work. This isn't being debated, and I do understand the reluctance to delete an article that someone clearly put a lot of time and effort into. I was actually initially leaning towards "keep" on that basis alone when I stumbled onto this discussion. However, the issue is far more structural and concerns whether or not this article adds information necessary to understand the original article, or adds information that is deserving of its own article. As for the former, the original article is incredibly detailed and informative and conveys more than enough information to provide a reader with clear understanding of both the initial 2011 and later 2012 performances of the play. Anyone wishing to learn about "She Has a Name" will be able to walk away from the original article fully informed without leaving any major gaps in knowledge left open. As for the latter, is the article necessary on its own because it is a significant topic in its own right, this is largely self-evident and has been explained fairly well by others. The fact that the article largely repeats large sections of "She Has a Name" by itself refutes the argument that this subject is necessary or notable in a vacuum. It is highly unlikely that a reader would search for this article without first reading the original, and as discussed, the original covers the information sufficiently and thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, straightforwardly meets the GNG. Anyone is welcome to restructure the articles as desired outside of this process, via talk page consensus, but given the size of the pages relative to each other this seems like a reasonable structure - this level of detail would be oppressive in the main article. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I think the major issue is that the level of detail is unnecessary as the initial article already covers the relevant information. Again, I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am kind of confused as to why most of the debate here seems to not be defending the content of the article in defending its existence but just the number of sources. It seems like the length and detail are just kind of being accepted on their face rather than being explored more deeply. Actually reading both articles back to back it seems like most of the information is repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs)

Weak delete or merge pretty much as per Bearcat above. There seems to me to be some good reason to think that we need to establish notability guidelines for specific performances of dramatic works which receive regular multiple performances, and I would think that from what I can see this would probably not pass them. I acknowledge the article, as it stands, is not bad, but at least borders on a form of theatrical fancruft. It would seem to me, perhaps, to make sense to have, if people wanted them, a separate article from the main article on a play or similar for the various outstanding performances of that play, but hopefully only one or two such for all performances. Otherwise, like others have mentioned above, we might have somewhere in the vicinity of several thousand articles on the various stage performances of Hamlet alone, and I cannot imagine that there is really that much encyclopedic material about even that topic, one of the most written about theatrical works ever, to merit such coverage. For performances which do receive significant enough non-local or non-regional coverage to establish general notability, however, like maybe the Richard Chamberlain Hallmark Hall of Fame version of Hamlet and other widely discussed versions, that would be different. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Reds

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}}.

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

Article is non-notable. Article Quality is poor. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could probably be speedied as a re-creation of an article that was previously deleted because eight years later the mod is still considered to be non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I can't find anything to show that it merits an article on Wikipedia or even really a mention in the main article for the series since it doesn't appear to be an overly popular mod for the game, all things considered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
how about you stop being an idiot and simply browse ModDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4423:5F17:C946:F93B:EF7E:BDB9 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL when responding to comments. The issue here is that while the mod exists and has a small fandom (WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ITSPOPULAR), that doesn't mean that this mod is particularly notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm stressing that this is per Wikipedia's guidelines since what may be acceptable or considered reliable off of Wikipedia may not necessarily be considered usable here as far as showing notability goes. At best the ModDB would be considered a routine database listing, which cannot show notability for the mod. It could back up small details but it cannot show any notability per reliable source guidelines. I'm sorry that you feel upset that this is up for deletion and I know that sometimes people can take deletion very, very personally, but making personal attacks against anyone will not win over anyone at AfD. If anything, it can actually weaken any further argument you make since your first edit was to resort to name calling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is worth noting that there may be a lot of sockpuppetry involved. I got a lot of backlash for this article being deleted from the fanatics in their community, which is why I had to remove the PROD. It appears from the above comment that this is already happening. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 18:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this with the "not a vote" tag since your comment gives off the impression that there may be people coming in to vote or otherwise make unproductive comments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to have the third party coverage in reliable sources that would have it meet the WP:GNG. ModDB is cited extensively, but it doesn't look to be a RS. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Entirely non notable module. Safiel (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm inclined to say this isn't notable, but I found several webpages that may or may not constitute sufficient sourcing, and I'd appreciate if someone could have a look: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] They're all gaming sites, but not all of them appear to be directly connected to the subject. Searching for sources was complicated by the fact that the phrase is often used to refer to other real-world events, so a more thorough effort might reveal more sources. ekips39 00:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These are reliable sources, and could probably "save" the article in question. However, they might at most bring the grading to a start-class or C-band because of a lack of detailed secondary sources. These are mostly interviews of the developers. I actually was linked to some sources which may be reliable, but need clarification as these are new media which is currently not covered by wikipedia policies. But this is for a seperate discussion, and right now, the article is of a substantially low quality and is not notable from the sources linked, as it relies on primary sources. I will relist this because of the new information however. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: New sources given. Could save article, need additional discussion, Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources given above, few look like they'd really be usable:

New sources

[15] This is a routine database type listing. It looks like it's been written by someone involved with the mod in the first place. None of the reviews on the page are usable since those can be written by anyone, meaning zero editorial oversight. There's really nothing on this page that can show notability. It could be used to back up trivial details but not show notability.
[16] This one is kind of iffy. It's an interview, but the website doesn't really show whether it was an interview held by the site, what (if any) type of editorial oversight they have, and so on. There really isn't much on there that shows how verifiable the site is, so I don't know that this would pass muster at WP:RS/N if I were to post it there.
[17] This one is better since bit-tech is far better known, but the issue here is that this is pretty brief when it comes down to it. The mod is briefly mentioned as taking third place in a contest held by Mod DB and typically awards only give notability if they win the top prize.
[18] This one doesn't even mention the mod in the article. It's mentioned in the comments but not the article itself.
[19] The issue with this one is that while GameStar is a known site, this appears to be a review by a random user as opposed to a staff member, since the translated headline for the page reads that these are reader reviews for the mod. This means that any user/reader can come on and write a review for the mod, akin to how anyone could say, go on to Goodreads and review a book or go to Amazon or IMDb and review a movie.
[20] The problem with this is that ultimately this is only a brief mention of the game in a list of other games. It's very briefly mentioned and the description given looks like it was probably taken from a press release or official writeup for the game. This would be considered a routine mention at best (meaning it can't give notability) since lists like these are typically made from the press releases/requests that are sent to the website in general. This isn't really like one of those lists that give a little more detail and mark the list as "best of 2014/fest/etc".

The only two that look remotely usable are the bit-tech and Command and Conquer articles and even then I don't really think that either would really be the type of article that would really give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I'm die hard against this being on Wikipedia, just that these are extremely weak sources that wouldn't pass muster if this were kept and brought back to AfD in a few months time. If any argument is going to be made to keep the article or show notability, the sources need to be far stronger than this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you say makes sense. Also, Wikiproject Video Games actively classifies ModDB as unreliable as well. See WP:VG/S under the unreliable section. My original comment was just a hunch that it was unreliable, but theres actually a consensus against its use. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals – Zero Hour. It did get a little bit of coverage in reliable sources: Polygon and Bit-Tech. It's already in that article, so there isn't really any need to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really "coverage", it's just Polygon posting the top 10 list of ModDB, and it was on it. That's about as brief of a passing mention as possible... Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I said it should be redirected. I'm alright with deletion, but it seems like this could be a useful redirect based on its popularity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79's analysis of the sources I provided. Could also be redirected or merged, but in any case it doesn't look suitable for its own article. ekips 39 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russell J. Berkowitz

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

Vanity article about lawyer of doubtful notability. I suspect paid editing here, since somebody has repeatedly tried to create an article about the non-notable charitable organisation connected with his law firm. TheLongTone (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything notable here. ubiquity (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Membership in various professional organizations not enough for WP:ANYBIO. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. Borders on promotional. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saurus (programming language)

(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. Only two sources are offered and both are WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful. Googling turned up absolutely nothing. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – According to the GitHub official site, "Saurus is under heavy development and is not currently suitable for real-life software development." Programming languages normally have to be used by someone other than their creators. WP:TOOSOON. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It seems no one has used this language or had commentary on it. Delete as non-notable. Piboy51 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of subjects taught for bachelor of technology in Civil

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

Wikipedia is not a place to list the subjects taught in a bachelor's degree for a certain discipline, especially when this can change from university to university. Graham87 15:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects does not change from university to university but the time at which the particular subject is taught may change. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for such school-specific minutia. Although I heartily approve of degrees in being Civil. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these subjects could certainly be different from school to school, and even country to country. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subjects are not so limited with one entity like this article seem to be showing. SamuelDay1 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup (non-admin closure) - ƬheStrike Σagle 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moladi

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

Article is primarily an advertisement and not of a notable company. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)9[reply]

Comment There seems to be a decent amount of coverage about the company in secondary sources, perhaps enough for an article. However, the point about the article being written like an advertisement is spot on - this needs a major rework. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the argument put forward falls squarely into WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Schwede 66 19:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has plenty of RS coverage, including an in-depth article in Der Spiegel. Seems notable under WP:ORGSIG "whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society..." – Margin1522 (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources found as well as this source [26], The article isn't perfect but personally it seems better to expand instead of deleting. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - ƬheStrike Σagle 19:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ingvar Ambjørnsen

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

This blp has a single reference. It was tagged for being under-referenced nearly 5 years ago, without any work being done to improve the references. Onel5969 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any real question about his notability. It has a single reference, but it is a highly reputable one. --Hegvald (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very clear Keep. Like Hegvalg says; the reference, Store norske leksikon, is itself a clear indication of notability; as is the fact that he is a Brage Prize winner and one of his books has been adapted into a film that was nominated for Oscar for best foreign language film. It's regrettable that the sourcing isn't better, but that's not really a notability question. (And the one reference actually covers a lot of what's in the article; allthough it is not inline-ref'd). Iselilja (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The SNL reference and the prizes demonstrate his notability. I've added another reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious notability. Manzzoku (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent's Genesius Evans

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

Non-notable martial artist - does not meet WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not notable for his teaching. Most of the references either don't show his name or are simply listings of sports results--none show significant independent coverage. Being a blue belt in BJJ is not noteworthy and his grappling accomplishments don't appear to be significant enough to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG because of a lack of significant independent coverage. Don't believe his grappling results are enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete behind much routine coverage is not enough significant coverage. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Pink. Any information worth merging to the main article is still available in the article histories. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Park Cho-rong

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

Person is not independently notable. Please redirect to the group, A Pink. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went over the entire list: none of these people have done anything that makes them notable according to the GNG outside of their group membership. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. — Revi 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the discussion below, I think we can keep. — Revi 04:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Son Naeun, I disagree with the removal because based on WP:ENT, she is notable enough to have her own page. She has notable individual activities such as main cast in variety show, lead actress in Music videos and Dramas. Beside that, she also chosen as a model for couple of brand and won award as "Star of the Year" for her variety show and nominated for "Best new actress" for her drama.

Moreover, Will this deletion applied to all individual group member of other Kpop group too? For example Girl's generation, Girl's Day, EXO etc. i still saw their individual member page even though some of them have similar individual activities with Apink members. For those member who have less notable individual activities, maybe can we do something like this? [27] --Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sonflower0210. --EliOrni (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think all the nominated pages can be deleted, except Son Na-eun, who looks quite enciclopedic. --Chiya⁹² 15:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not a technical WP valid reason, but please note the 7 countries/languages which have listed her. This is slightly outside the usual Kpop PR machine context. Mild keep-Augustabreeze (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the issue with many of these articles is that they use sources like Allkpop which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. They have a disclaimer that states: "Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims".... It's possible to replace such sources with legit ones but it will take time and a lot of effort from a Korean member who can understand the Korean articles. I think with proper sourcing the solo pages would follow WP:N but a list page may make more sense for now. SKS (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB link added. I now formally alter position to keep. -Augustabreeze (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Augustabreeze, I don't know to which article you added something or which one you are proposing to keep. In addition, IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and it certainly does not add the kind of in-depth discussion required by our notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drmies, I am cognisant that project is under regular assault by the Kpop publishing machine. However, I have added yet another mainstream link. There is Korean Herald coverage on this actress, as well as the Maeil Broadcasting Network which is a nationwide television network in SK. This is not an indie artist struggling to get free publicity. This is a known face/name in SK, and the Portuguese and French have also written articles about her--technically not a WP valid reason, but evidence of international reputation. Brazil knows this woman. It is not a 19 teen year old doing half an hour of self-released youtube a day. With addition of MBN coverage, I reiterate keep. Thank you-Augustabreeze (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- For Yoon Bomi and Park Chorong, I would think that the pages should be kept because they've done enough individual activities (Chorong has acted on quite a few dramas and Bomi has been an MC and member of many variety shows). Moreover, they will most likely continue doing more so I think it would only make sense to keep their pages. - Therealdeepi (talk)
- For all AfD readers, please note that the above comment is a technical keep. Thank you, -Augustabreeze (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any passing admin (Northamerica1000, you around?), please close this--I withdraw. We got comments that don't clearly indicate who should be kept and who shouldn't, and we got Augustabreeze dictating how someone else's comment should be read, as if they were a mind reader. I'll take care of them individually. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I support redirecting these to A Pink, except Son Na-eun who may be notable. --Random86 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn, but the discussion has received some !votes for redirection, so a speedy keep close doesn't quite qualify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Park Cho-rong and Son Na-eun as they seem to have become sufficiently notable as individuals. Not so sure about the others. --PanchoS (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:Park Cho-rong and Son Na-eun are no Independent activities of the Group ,Please redirect to the group, A Pink.(سعيدس (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Park Cho-rong and Son Na-eun. They are notable enough to remain having an article. Rongderp (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete except possibly Son Na-eun. All others have no notability outside A Pink. A few cameos and visits to variety shows does not equal notability. Son Na-eun was nominated for some legit acting awards and won some for variety show work. So she might pass the notability test. The awards are referenced to allkpop, but could possibly be confirmed on the award website for accuracy. But is an award for 'We Got Married' really notable? Was that award covered in any reliable sources outside of the awards' own website and gossip sites? If not, then it's not enough to establish notability. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate keep; Chosun Ilbo coverage; independent feature-length film movie 2009 / imdb.com; Park Cho-rong is an independent actress, a subject independently without any other A Cube members of media coverage. AfD is not a vote and PCR passes WP:MUSIC notability guidelines including article 12, article 1, etc etc etc. A total of FIVE national-level newspapers or broadcast channels independently covering her without any reference or pictures of other A Cube members. -Augustabreeze (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all) as non-notable. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again again and again and again again and again. AfD is not a vote. AfD is not a vote. You must specifically cite WP process regulations contradicting last known commentary if reversing on the consensus. Thank you. Please also see The Caraway Group ongoing AfD process breakdown. AfD readers please note that many of the Delete comments above are new accounts/ possible socks. -08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustabreeze (talk • contribs)
- Augustabreeze, I'm not sure why you are so worked up over this. None of the accounts that have posted here look suspicious to me. --Random86 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - 86, [user] does nothing but vote deletes and has all of 7 edits, zero content contribution. The Caraway Group has also degenerated into a "horse-racing" contest where the closing admin just counted "2 deletes, 1 keep" okay it's finished. AfD is not a vote. It is about confirmation of two independent national-level media sources. Thanks eight six -08:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustabreeze (talk • contribs)
Redirect Kim Nam-joo (singer), Oh Ha-young, Hong Yoo-kyung these people do not have solo activities which are independently notable of the group. Yookyung is completely dependent on Apink for her notability because she is no longer in the entertainment industry. Naeun definitely does, Bomi has had quite a few long-term mc gigs and I'm undecided on Chorong Asdklf; (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Son Na-eun, Yoon Bomi and Park Cho-rong. For Naeun, I have mention the reasons above.

For Yoon Bo-mi. As other mention, Bomi has been active in a lot of TV shows. She has been MC for more than a year and recently cast for Real Men show. Beside released a song as Apink Subunit, she also released and performed another song collaboration on music show. For Park Cho-rong. She has written 4 full song, she also has acted in 3 dramas and a lead actress in one of them. So beside Naeun and Bomi, she is notable to have their own individual page based on WP:COMPOSER and WP:ENT. I'm not too sure about the other 2 members but this is their individual activities, Namjoo had done two other song collaboration beside released a song with Bomi. Hayoung was a lead actress for two music videos and also have released a song collaboration with other artist. --Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all no notability outside the group. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - as above, not independently notable. Neutrality^talk 03:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - No credible indication of notability to the point of making her suitable for a stand alone article. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kelapstick: @Bellerophon:@Neutrality: @Lixxx235: @سعيدس:. Can you guys please help explain to me why you think all of them don't have notability outside the group? Because it seems that all the discussion on this page are one way, so it never reach any conclusion. As i have mention above, I think Son Naeun, Yoon Bomi and Park Chorong are notable to have their own page based on WP:ENT and WP:COMPOSER. Kindly review my two separate explanation about it. Thank you so much --Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because their articles speak for themselves. Outside of the band, their contributions to entertainment do not rise beyond the level of trivia. Terms like "appearance", "cameo" and "guest co-MC" are analogous with trivia. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellerophon: Some of them started their individual acting career as a cameo but have since then moved to bigger role.

- For Son Na-eun. She has notable individual activities such as main cast in variety show for 8 months, supporting/main role (non-cameo) in Dramas and Movie. Beside that, she alone also chosen as a model for couple of brands and won award as "Star of the Year" for her variety show and nominated for "Best new actress" for her drama. So I think based on WP:ENT, she's notable enough.

- For Park Cho-rong. She has fully written 4 song, she also has acted as supporting roles in drama All My Love and lead roles in Plus Nine Boys . So I don't think it's trivia and she is notable to have their own individual page based on WP:COMPOSER and WP:ENT.

- For Yoon Bo-mi. She has been MC for more than a year (more than 70 episodes) for special corner on Weekly Idol, main cast for variety show "Human Condition" Special (3eps) and she recently cast as regular for Real Men variety show. In addition to released a single as Apink Subunit, she also released a song collaboration with other artist and performed it on music show. so based on WP:ENT, I think her individual activities are not trivial and she is notable enough to have her own page.--Sonflower0210 (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have defeated your own argument: they have all only been cast as "supporting" or otherwise minor roles in films, TV or productions. Park's slightly more important role in Plus Nine Boys does not rise to the 'significant roles in multiple notable films or other productions' required by WP:ENT. Also, WP:COMPOSER makes it quite clear that a person who scrapes by as a composer but otherwise lacks enough notability or reliable sources to write a detailed biographical article should be merged and redirected to the parent/most relevant article. Your arguments for keeping these articles are writ large in this AfD, I do not support them because I believe your interpretation of the relevant policies is flawed. Quit filibustering please. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said "they have all only been cast as "supporting", I said they got some supporting and main roles. Also Supporting roles here is not minor roles or cameo but someone who's carry significant roles but not necessarily the lead actress. Isn't it the definition of Supporting actor? For example, Lupita Nyong'o got award "Best supporting actress" for "12 Years a Slave". She's not the lead actress because there are several major roles in that movie but it was a significant role.

Moreover, Son Naeun role in Childless Comfort was a lead role just like Park Chorong in Nine boys. Both were on the drama poster and also went to the press conference to promote the dramas which only be done by those who got significant roles. Both drama have no single lead role, but several main roles similar with TV Show How I Met Your Mother. On top of that, Son Naeun was also a main cast in variety show "We Got Married" for 8 months beside acted as supporting roles in "The Great Seer" drama and "Marrying the Family" movie. She win award for her variety show and nominated for her acting. She was also chosen as a model for couple of brand alone without her group member. Therefore just like Yoon Bomi, I think Son Naeun has 'significant roles in multiple notable films or other productions' required by WP:ENT. As for Park Chorong, beside her lead role in Nine boys, she also has supporting roles in "All My Loves" drama and she was appeared on 85 episodes so she also had significant multiple roles too.

I saw other group like Backstreet Boys and Nsync, Some of them also don't have a lot of individual notability outside the group, but why they can have an individual page? --Sonflower0210 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 03:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew S. Wright

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

Don't believe that he meets WP:NBASEBALL - only playing at amateur level Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBASEBALL, don't think it meets WP:GNG either. The author is probably writing an autobiography. (A-es-dub). – Muboshgu (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college baseball player. Does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), or baseball players per WP:NBASEBALL (never played in a regular season major league game). No evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony C. Ocampo

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

promotional bio for non notable assistant professor. In a field dependent on books, he has not yet published any. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I couldn't find any sources to show notability (other than his involvement in the said lawsuit). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable professor, failes WP:PROF test. The lawsuit appears to be not very important thing either. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. Springboarding off of a lawsuit that received some brief publicity is not enough. Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Re DGG's argument about "a field dependent on books", some sociologists depend more on journal articles than books (an example) but the citation record doesn't help there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks evidence of notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. While this company may or may not be notable, nothing currently in the ad would survive in an encyclopedia article. I'll provide the references given in it upon request. —Cryptic 19:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen SDMC Technology Co., Ltd.

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

Provided sources appear to be from press releases, trade show promotional pieces and partner websites, thus failing WP:ORGIND. Lacking further evidence, this would imply the company fails our notability criteria. Dolescum (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11 as an overt advertisement. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submit press release 123

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

non notqbl. th r3f are either self-authoreed, press releases, or not substantially about the subject. Our bar for companies in the advertising business is and ought to be relatively high. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This company is featured in article in Forbes and TechCrunch and is a $100 M a year business. If you don't like parts that seem self promotional than edit them. But the article in Forbes was an interview so it makes sense the CEO would use that opportunity to promote his company. It's easy to get outraged and say "Delete" it but the company isn't going away and they meet the notability requirements so its unfair to delete them rather than edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references are self-published (BuzzFeed user article, TechCrunch article, CNN "iReport" article, press release) or non-reliable sources (Forbes contributor blogs, Examiner.com). Many only mention the company in passing, and don't even support the cited claim. Reliable, third-party sources are required to demonstrate notability. Trivialist (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and Techcrunch are not self submitted and 95% of articles are guests (Huffington Post has no in house writers.) Just because they are in passing doesn't validate them. He hasn't had a feature article yet, but has been in business for 15 years and does $100 Million a year in business. My sense is you don't like he's in advertising, but we can't eliminate all the advertising companies except the mega stars. If there's a problem with the claims then let's edit the article instead of deleting it. There's issues with many articles on Wikipedia and they are not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable company trying to bootstrap its own PR releases into sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. You don't explain either Forbes or Techcrunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is from one of their contributor blogs, which don't receive editorial oversight from Forbes, so it's not suitable for establishing notability. CrunchBase describes itself as "a crowdsourced database, so anyone can edit any profile," and the sole contributor to the TechCrunch page is listed as Qamar Zaman, which is the same name as the company's owner. If the company is notable and does do $100 million in business, surely there is some independent, third-party coverage of this. Trivialist (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, have to agree with Trivialist here. There's a dearth of independent reliable sources to show notability beyond passing mentions. Crow^Caw 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the non-reliable sources identified by Trivialist, the recently added ref (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1202643) is not verified by CNN and not sourced. As such, it also fails to establish notability. Piboy51 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. —Cryptic 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got7 1st Japan Tour 2014

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

Tour fails WP:NTOUR. Article has no sources at all, no set list, no discussion of any aspect of the tour. I looked for sources myself and found nothing apart from two articles confirming the tour's existence. Requirement for significant coverage in independent, reliable media does not appear to have been met. These venues were all small and this is a new group, so it's very plausible this didn't make it on the radar in Japan. The first paragraph of the article doesn't make sense and appears to be copy-pasted from something else. I can't figure out a way to improve this article aside from adding a set list and some copyediting, which won't make it enough to meet NTOUR. (Voters, please familiarize yourself with NTOUR before commenting.) Shinyang-i (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Searching for ["got7" "日本ツアー" OR "全国ツアー"] gets about 20 pages of results on Japanese Google. This says that total attendance was 25,000. This is a report on the final concert at Makuhari Messe, which is a major venue. That drew about 5,000. The other venues were smaller. The concert report was about what they were wearing, who danced, etc. The set list could probably be added from other articles in Japanese. I don't know how significant all of this is, as tours go. It seems like a fairly short and small one that could be handled in their article. The official site was a Twitter page. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It'd be nice if article creators would do some work like you have. I was shocked to find such little info in English. :) I was wondering what you meant when you said the official site was a Twitter page? Shinyang-i (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this is the English Wikipedia. I don't know how much research we can expect people to do in other languages. Here is the Twitter page. On closer inspection it turns out to be the group's official Japanese page. Also I suspect that a lot of the action might be taking place on the mobile phone sites. Anyway, I think I'm going to abstain from !voting on this, because I don't have a good enough sense of what a notable tour is for a pop group. Obviously they're not Michael Jackson, but nobody else is either. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. True, nobody is Michael Jackson, but even U2 has had a notable tour or two. This isn't one, as even a cursory perusal of NTOUR demonstrates. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge/redirect into Got7#Japan_Tours. I said I wasn't going to !vote on this, but after looking at the rash of other articles on K-pop tours I think we have to establish some standards here. Of the ones up for AfD now, it looks to me like WP:Articles for deletion/Big Bang Japan Dome Tour 2014 has the best case for being a notable tour. If someone wants to recreate that one once there is something to say about it, OK. But not this one. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12). MER-C 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Quek

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

Unremarkable singer. Couldn't find any reliable coverage, only non-independent coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyright violation from [28], [29] and probably others. Deleted. MER-C 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Cenik

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

Kickboxer who fails to meet the kickboxing notability criteria at WP:KICK. All of the coverage is routine sports reporting--fight results or fight announcements and PR--so he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree with the nominator. He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current references do not adequately support notability. Lots of briefs mentions or routine coverage, but nothing significant even after searching on .tr websites. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 12:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Osman (oilwrestler)

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

This is a biography with no sources and no indication of notability.Jakejr (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG Igor the bunny (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles require sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expanded slightly and added refs. Notable since he has been wrestling champion in Kırkpınar.--CeeGee 11:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the article's 3 references, I can't access two of them and the third mentions his name once. Does not meet WP:GNG and there's no supporting evidence to show he's a notable wrestler. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I can still access all of them. There is no problem at all. Maybe you try once again or ask someone alse to do the same for you. --CeeGee 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best he's mentioned in a list. There is no significant coverage of him so he fails to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current references are in sufficient to support notability, they seem to only have his name on a list. Searching for additional references, including in .tr websites reveals no significant coverage, although I admit I do not read turkish and rely on google to translate. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 12:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentalism (disambiguation)

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

All the claims here are unsourced and refer to concepts that have no article. If someone wants to write an article on (for example) Ethical Instrumentalism then fine let them do that and then we can have a disambiguation link but as of now this page serves no purpose. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not recognized distinctions; they are just made up. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we're having a hard enough time finding a decent defn of Instrumentalism, we don't need multiplying undefined concepts William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:TWODABS - one PT with no other topic. Widefox; talk 00:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate between any extant articles. Even if the topic is notable, this page is inappropriate. Piboy51 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No existing articles, serves no purpose, no support for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SM Town Live '08

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

And another set of (three) K-pop concerts. Nothing in here is verified--there is only one single reference, and it may actually be reliable, but it pertains to the 2010 version of this series. See WP:NTOUR, which requires discussion of the tour as a tour, not just individual performances or announcements. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles require independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the necessary info on the page could be condensed into a few sentences on the SM page Asdklf; (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' There is basically nothing in this article beyond "it happened". Per WP:NTOUR, that is not enough to warrant an article. As already mentioned, everything on this page could be summed up in a couple of sentences on the SM Town page. There is simply nothing else to say. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reference seems to be routine, the only external link is promotional and from the subject. Search for sources reveals no indication of notability, even on korean language websites. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SM Town Live World Tour IV

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

Yet another K-pop tour without any reliable sourcing at all that discusses the tour as a tour (see WP:NTOUR). The only sourcing that's there pertains to individual shows and most of it is not from reliable sources. It seems to me that the only purpose this article serves is as a collection of set lists. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies, no notable information. Set lists by themselves serve no encyclopedic values.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTOUR. Article is a collection of set lists. Could be summarized in one or two sentences in the SM Town article. Sources that merely confirm the existence of a tour do not suffice to make it merit an article. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expand from reliable sources or Delete – Should not be too hard to find at least Korean-language sources to back up importance of this tour. Monni (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 19:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarsh Gupta

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Redirect to their notable tv soap opera Kaisi Yeh Yaariyan has been reverted by creator of the page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. Note that this page was earlier speedy deleted on 25 December 14 [30]. Nominated for CSD by me. It was created by another new account, Terific j (talk · contribs). 220 of ^Borg 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. Clearly non-notable. ƬheStrike Σagle 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, no significant coverage. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 13:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band Famous

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

Prod declined. Author tried in good faith to fix the article, but most of the sources are not reliable or are WP:REFBOMBing by scraping up dozens of passing mentions. Several of the sources don't even mention the band at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. No indication of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the "keep" !votes are policy based and the meat-/sockpuppeting going on does not help either. Article is promotional, has no independent sourcing. Randykitty (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd.

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}}.

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

There doesn't seem to be anything about this publishing house outside of websites tied directly to it or organization's relating to the same religious revival movement (none of which are professionally done). This not only fails WP:ORG but also WP:GNG. This seems like an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ARTSPAM. No independent coverage whatsoever, at least in English - fails WP:COMPANY. In fact, this is a publishing arm of Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr, a hardly-notable organisation in Lahore, Pakistan, set up a few years back in order to promote a specific interpretation of the teachings of the mediaeval mystic and poet Sultan Bahoo. kashmiri ^TALK 09:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: Please note that this one and several other AFDs on related subjects have been the target of sockpuppetry and several SPAs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364 for more information. Bjelleklang - talk 18:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should Not Delete In a country like Pakistan which is targeted for terrorism, I see this publication as spreading Sufism via books which is very crucial and important for the country. All its books are not on one saint. I have just checked its book listt. but seriously its worth something considering the chaos in the country at least its a way of spreading peace. even their books are online for downloading. i dnt think their aim is commercial. Seems informational. Disregard WP:ARTSPAM as it is not sale-oriented. all their books are free online. Disregard WP:COMPANY as it is WP:NOTESAL. Iilluminate (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not To Be Deleted i have viewed this page and I don't find it a promotion as I followed it, all the material in it is free online and is used for spread of Sufism in Pakistan which is a much necessary thing in Pakistan where the country is being hit for terrorism.In a nutshell this page is not an ad or promotion of an organisation as per WP:Neutral point of view this page is not taking any sides but mentioning the original facts based on teachings of sufism. And its content are totally free online so how can it be an advertisement. the afd tag should be removed as this is informative and not only provides knowledge about sufism and true teachings of Sulan bahoo but of different saints also which is a good effort and necessary work to do in Pakistan.DAVIDmosla (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE NOT REQUIRED Couldn't agree more. The article doesn't require a delete...as it is a stand alone article. it is only informational. and Yes Pakistan does require such publications to promote peace plus im relieved to find out such non-profit organizations exist who aim to spread Sufism as its books are downloadable online I jus checked. surely appreciated! remove AfD JugniSQ (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following what was said above, it's quite convenient that after three consecutive SPIs, we again have some brand new accountsd with the same level of English as a second language and the same tendency to ignore all common formatting conventions for AfD comments. They're also all making the same weak, irrelevant arguments bent on defending this and the related articles on non-notable subjects tied to this organization. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment congrats! you are so intelligent and have knowledge of hidden secrets!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iilluminate (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why are most editors discussing sockpuppetry n not the article itself?? i dont know about others but really what a mess. Also the editors pointing out socketpuppetry are the ones with nil understanding of the article topic which relates to Islamic spirituality. User:MezzoMezzo is prominent and so is this User:kashmiri ...... plz dnt comment or place deletion tags on articles without reading up.

n plz improve article dnt blame each othr. Iilluminate (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, the User:MezzoMezzo and User:kashmiri are just giving vague explanation regarding the articles in order to hit a particular organisation demonstrating their biased and suspicious behaviour.They must read the topic in order to get the full understanding so it will be cleared then this article is about knowledge and meaning of the true preachings of Sufism.so i'l vote for keeping this article so users may be acquainted with pearls of knowledge after reading this article.DAVIDmosla (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Accused parties may also comment see Defending yourself against claims. Note Some users defending their comments against Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364 182.185.229.16 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::I just want you to make clear that you should debate on this article not some investigations which i am not aware of.For your kind information I am not defending any user the thing I said earlier was that this is a knowledgable article.Note their biaseness towards some sockpuppet investigation and no relating comment on the article.DAVIDmosla (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — DAVIDmosla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Unnecessary deletion If this publication is observed closely one can notice that it is being publishing books regularly on Sufism and topics related to it. For some those topics are not popular and for others ( a large number ) those topics are treasure and a source of consolation. Publishing books regularly and with ISBN its self discloses its growing popularity and enormous likeness. So i do not see any strong reason to delete this article unless some one is being bigotry. Keith Cawdry (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Keith Cawdry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 policy-based "keep" !votes. The meat/sockpuppeting doesn't help either. Randykitty (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr

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

I cannot find any information or even slight mention of this organization outside of websites directly tied to it. This article fails WP:ORG and even WP:GNG and merely seems like an attempt by someone tied to it to exploit Wikipedia to generate publicity. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC) MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional material. Wikipedia should not give legitimacy to this. Shii (tock) 04:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in English. kashmiri ^TALK 10:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -WP:PROMO that fails WP:NCORP, and has 90% copyright violation confidence-[31]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: Please note that this one and several other AFDs on related subjects have been the target of sockpuppetry and several SPAs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364 for more information. Bjelleklang - talk 18:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Reason To Deletethe organization ===Tehreek dawat e Faqr=== is a recognized organization which is notable according to the Wikipedia notable guidelines as it has reliabale,,authentic content which is independently recognized by third parties and other sources which are cited below:

http://sultanpeerghafoorshah.wordpress.com/tag/tehreek-dawat-e-faqr-sultan-ul-faqr-sultan-ul-faqr-sultanulfaqr-alfaqr-sultan-ul-arifeen-silsala-sarwari-qadri-sultan-bahoo-ism-allah-zat-ism-e-mohammad-insan-e-kamil/ https://m.facebook.com/tehreekdawatefaqr http://tehreekdawatefaqr.wordpress.com/about/ there is some other too which recognize them u can check. There is no copyright violation done according to Wikipedia copyright rules as the organization tehreek dawat e faqr has allowed any visitor to utilize its material which can be copied or can be used. It has no copyrights reserved Wikipedia has also provided with the ticket to copy content from the mentioned site under the OTRS ticket #2013062010002201 so its material can be copied. The metioned 90% copy material is fundamental which is unchangeable and basic and are the terms which cannot be changed, so I think this deletion tag is baseless.FrancoSQ (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr is a popular Sufi Non profit organization registered under THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860(http://punjablaws.gov.pk/laws/1.html , this Orghanization work to spread literary work don by different Sufi saints,this organization pass 100% WP:ORGand WP:GNG, The language of this Article is Informational not promotional 202.166.163.146 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Not Delete In a country like Pakistan which is targeted for terrorism, I see this organization as spreading Sufism via books and websites which is very crucial and important for the country. its worth something considering the chaos in the country at least its a way of spreading peace. even their books are online for downloading. i dnt think their aim is commercial. Seems informational to me. Only WP:NOTESAL applies. Iilluminate (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE NOT REQUIRED

Couldn't agree more. The article doesn't require a delete...as it is a stand alone article. it is only informational. and Yes Pakistan does require such organizations to promote peace plus im relieved to find out such non-profit organizations exist who aim to spread Sufism. surely appreciated! remove AfD JugniSQ (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following what was said above, it's quite convenient that after three consecutive SPIs, we again have some brand new accountsd with the same level of English as a second language and the same tendency to ignore all common formatting conventions for AfD comments. They're also all making the same weak, irrelevant arguments bent on defending this and the related articles on non-notable subjects tied to this organization. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then all articles of relating to any Tehreek must be deleted not just one specific such as Sunni Tehreek, Tehrik-e-Jafaria, Tehreek Nizam-e-Mustafa, Awami Tehreek, Tehreek-e-Tahaffuz-e-Pakistan and many other articles. Any article that doesnt promote and is non profit can exist n should be kept. So, this page should be kept Iilluminate (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Pakistan related articles and specifically articles based on Sufism are subject to deletion because they are of least interest to foreigners because of thier lack of interest and understanding. but this is very important to promote peace and guide people spirtually.What fame will this organisation get by explaining the true meaning of Islam.It is a non-profitable organisation.the content of this article is not to promote but just to refer the people to their true self.DAVIDmosla (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" It should not be deleted " because

-Any organization cannot be categorized as Non-notable only on Wikipedia or internet basis, Wikipedia Policy also says that the notability -should not only be on internet or in English, the ground realities are also acceptable. -It is very notable on real grounds in Pakistan. It hosts and organizes different religious events in multiple parts of the country. -It has followers not only from Pakistan but International as well. -It is circulating published materials in country, therefore it is notable not only in common people but in Book Shops and Publications Houses as well.

110.93.205.162 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Farrukh

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

Not clear to me why Wikipedia should host a hoax (the External Links section shows that this page is a hoax). Shii (tock) 03:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unlikely claim repeated on many unreliable sites. While the Wikipedia article in its current form (thanks to User:Graham1973) prudently informs us that ibn Farrukh is "mythical", there are not enough reliable sources to make this a even a notable myth/hoax. (See the blog post mentioned in the article (section "External links") and the source given there, "La supuesta expedición de Ben-Farroukh a las Canarias".)
Should one reliable source be found describing 'ibn Farrkuh''s discovery of America (not only his travels in the Canaries) even as a hoax, then redirect and mention briefly as a hoax at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Arab.
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:GNG, period. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found one apparently reliable source that seems to mention the myth of Ibn Farrukh's discovery of America, as well as a reference to the above-mentioned refutation: World Islam (Vol. 4), p. 317, (edited?) by Andrew Rippin. Would that suffice for my proposed redirect? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Changed the link to point to the relevant passage. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good citation. Let's do that. Shii (tock) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, that might not be such a good idea. I've succeeded in maneuvering Google Books' snippet view enough to read the entire paragraph; the author (one Rafael A. Guevara Bazán) of the article (correct title: "Some notes for a history of the relations between Latin America, the Arabs and Islam", pp. 310–18; reprinted from Guevara Bazán, Rafael A. (1971). "Some notes for a history of the relations between Latin America, the Arabs and Islam". The Muslim World. 61 (4): 284–92.) does not make the less likely claim that Ibn Farrukh discovered America—he only repeats the alleged legend of visiting the Canary Islands, mentions doubts as to its authenticity, and proceeds to discuss the possibility of medieval Arabs discovering America. Thus, we have no reliable sources even for a brief mention as a hoax. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Debate marred by meat/sockpuppetry and an out-of-process attempt to close it. None of the "keep" !votes appears to be policy based. Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faqr-e-Iqbal

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

A niche foreign-language book, published in 2014, fails WP:NBOOK completely. kashmiri ^TALK 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a part of the whole Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. fiasco. A non-notable organization establishing a non-notable publishing house a few years ago creating a fiefdom of articles about their non-notable books on non-notable subjects and creating a drawer full of sockpuppets to defend them. The socks have all been blocked, their arguments discredited based on site policies and guidelines. This one is no different. All "sources" point back to other books by the same publishing house or websites tied to them. A hardcore fail of WP:GNG and WP:NOTADVERTISING. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justice should be equal. There are so many other Wikipedia articles on Urdu books. Delete them as well. The book is notable for those who read poetry and Sufism. Justice should be for all and not justice for selected. Delete Urdu-book articles such as

Tuhafat Ul Mujahideen

Pir-e-Kamil

and countless others

JugniSQ (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JugniSQ: First, be kind enough to use WP:INDENTATION. Second, no, books are are not equal, what a crazy idea? "Justice for books"??? There is a certain number of notable books (see WP:NBOOK) and there are millions of others that are not. Third, Tuhafat Ul Mujahideen is not an Urdu book. Pir-e-Kamil has been translated into English and has had several reviews in mainstream English-language media.

This is my last response to you. Hope you will now stop WP:TROLLING. kashmiri ^TALK 09:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are against Urdu-book articles then? especially if they r not translated in English? what kind of idea is this? and how dare you call my idea crazy? that s a personal attack. At least be civil!

JugniSQ (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Reason To Delete.i have read this book Faqr e Iqbal and I don't think it as a promotion as these are the teachings of famous sufi poet ===Muhammad Iqbal=== and this book has no such material like to promote any organisation this is just the book based on preachings of Muhammad Iqbal and I don't think the user who is hitting this knowledgable book has read this book for a single time as if he has read this book he would have known that these are not the promotions but are the teaching and preachings of Muhammad Iqbal with its true meaning.I think this deletion tag is just a personal biaseness of user:kashmiri who don't know the content of book otherwise would find it a great piece of knowledgeable informative book not an advertisement.FrancoSQ (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following what was revealed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364, it's quite convenient that after three consecutive SPIs, we again have some brand new accountsd with the same level of English as a second language and the same tendency to ignore all common formatting conventions for AfD comments. They're also all making the same weak, irrelevant arguments bent on defending this and the related articles on non-notable subjects tied to this organization. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article talks about a book on Sir Muhammad Iqbal who is a very famous personality who had an international influence. See article on Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Also this article holds a neutral point of view. Iilluminate (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as this is not a platform for promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not one of the sources refers to this book from 2014. The author is perhaps notable, but not this treatise. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book cannot be objected as WP:NBOOK because

- it complies with WP:BKTS, WP:OLDBOOK, WP:OBK and WP:BOOKSTORE Google Books, Slideshare.

- it's all about explaining and conveying Muhammad Iqbal's poetry. and more precisely describes the topic of Faqr

110.93.205.162 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Referring to WP:OLDBOOK for a book published in 2014 is a nonsense, as is mentioning WP:BOOKSTORE. WP:BKTS are minimum standards - they are necessary but not sufficient to include a book on WP. There is an article on Muhammad Iqbal and all explanations can go there. kashmiri ^TALK 13:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close: Significant literary work on famous philosopher, poet, mystic and politician Sir Muhammad Iqbal, This Book is a Urdu ode on Iqbaliyat. The language of Iqbaliyat is also Urdu 182.185.229.16 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, This article is based on a book that refers to the preachings of Muhmmad Iqbal with its true meaning without taking any sides as per WP:NPOV. It is versatile in its own nature explaining the messages of Iqbal given in it's poetry as WP:V the content is not made up.DAVIDmosla (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary deletion

Mr. Iqbal a renowned philosophical personality(worldwide) and a famous poet of Sub-continent,have tones of poetry work,significantly focusing on mysticism and Sufism,topically faqr. This book is a cluster of his poetry on faqr and Sufism. After a meticulous study it can be concluded that this article is legitimate to be on Wikipedia and should not be wasted by unnecessary deletion. Keith Cawdry (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Need to Delet. Asrar-e-Khudi , Rumuz-e-Bekhudi , Zabur-e-Ajam , Javed Nama are some of the most famous collection of poetry of Sir Muhammad Iqbal .It is important to note that each collection has a separate WP article. Same is the case with this very article Faqr-e-Iqbal . Since this book explains about the core Islamic ideology of Sir Muhammad Iqbal i.e. Faqr, hence this article must sustain and should not be deleted. Azuz sandy (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ika Hügel-Marshall

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

~~Fails WP:ANYBIO. Non-notable author of a non-notable book. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Chris Troutman (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - take another look at the article Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn with no !votes made to delete. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 06:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translator (computing)

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

I have taken courses in programming languages and compiler design at the university, and have never heard this term. The term for a computer program transforming from one language to another is simply "compiler". To compile simply means to translate from one language to another. Also, article has no references, and a quick Google search doesn't find anything but Wikipedia itself. And the inclusion of interpreters in that article just underscores how misguided it is, since an interpreter certainly doesn't translate anything. Thue (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Well, there are even some university courses that cover translators within the context of programming languages. At the same time, intepreters also translate computer programs from one language to another, it's just that they don't do that at once but incrementally during the execution of a program. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a common term in computer science. Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on program translation. "Program translation" nets about 2,200 hits on GScholar. Chapter 5 (first edition) of the standard Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools book by Aho. Sethi, and Ullman is on syntax-directed translation. And so on. There are more than enough reliable sources out there with which to write a reasonable article on this subject. --Mark viking (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I retract. The term was not used at my university, and the total lack of references tricked me. Also, I am still going to replace the use of the "translator" term with "compiler" at KPHP, since using the more specific term is always better. And compilers do include compiling to other languages than assembler/machine code. Thue (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As our Compiler article says in its lead section, "the name 'compiler' is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code)", so calling KPHP a compiler would be actually slightly misleading. Calling it a "source-to-source translator" is as specific as it should be. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)

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

WP:CONTENTFORK, article poorly duplicates information in Republic of Estonia and History of Estonia. It is also a POV fork as it gives the impression that the pre and post war Estonian republics are not the same entity. Similar content fork created by Elevatorrailfan (talk · contribs) was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland (1937-1949). --Nug (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am finding some aspects of the nomination slightly confusing. Republic of Estonia is, and has been for a very long time, a redirect to Estonia. The Republic of Estonia entry in Template:Estonia topics is (and has also been for a very long while) positioned as if referring to the history of Estonia during the 1920s and 1930s but, rather than linking to the article under discussion here or to Republic of Estonia, links to History of Estonia#Republic of Estonia - however, there is no longer a Republic of Estonia section in History of Estonia, as the nominator has, since the start of this AfD, removed its heading, effectively merging the section with the previous one in that article. Having said that, the current article under discussion here covers its supposed topic even less well than the relevant sections of Estonia and History of Estonia - while these both skip from 1920 to 1933, the current article skips from 1920 to 1940. We need a Wikipedia article that covers this period of Estonian history properly - and we don't have it. PWilkinson (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the article History of Estonia needs improvement and the relevant templates cleaned up to reduce confusion, deleting this content fork is part of that clean up. The two sections in the article subject of this AFD adds nothing new, both have text copy pasted from the articles Estonian War of Independence and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic which is already summarised in Estonia and History of Estonia anyway. --Nug (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic having existed from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Republic of Estonia and History of Estonia already mention and discuss Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic as a part of that country's history. This article remains a content fork, it adds nothing that isn't already in (or could be added to) those other articles. On another level this article could also be considered a POV fork as it creates the impression that the Estonian republic founded in 1918 came to an end in 1940, however consensus has solidified in reliable sources over the past decade that the Republic of Estonia before the Soviet era is the same and continuous with the Republic of Estonia after the Soviet era. The following is a list of sources:

Marek, Krystyna (1968). Identity and continuity of states in public international law (2 ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Libr. Droz.
Hiden, Johan; Salmon, Patrick (1994). The Baltic Nations and Europe (Revised ed.). Harlow, England: Longman. ISBN 0-582-25650-X.
Gerard, Craig. The Baltic question during the cold war. Routledge. ISBN 9781134197309.
Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. M. Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-411-2177-3.
Van Elsuwege, Peter (2003). State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States. Leiden Journal of International Law (Cambridge Journals) 16: pp.377–388. doi:10.1017/S0922156503001195.
Ziemele, Ineta (2005). State Continuity and Nationality: The Baltic States and Russia. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 90-04-14295-9.
Van Elsuwege, Peter (2008). From Soviet republics to EU member states: a legal and political assessment of the Baltic states' accession to the EU. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-16945-6.

As it stands this article is factually incorrect as the infobox says the Estonian government-in-exile succeeded it, however the sources cited above state otherwise, and Estonia's 1938 constitution remained in force until it was amended by referendum in 1992, one year after its de facto independence was restored. Note that this article was for a long time, since 2007[32], a redirect to History of Estonia#Independence. Only in May 2012 was it turned into an article[33] but that was promptly reverted back some days later into a redirect[34]. But again it was turned back into an article in December 2014[35], so deletion is necessary given that this is turning into a potential POV magnet. --Nug (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the redirect Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940), should be restored as an article & the redirect Republic of Latvia (1918–1940), should be changed to an article. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) was created by an indef-banned user R-41 (talk · contribs). --Nug (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a rational periodization of Estonian history, much like the above-cited Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic and worthy of in-depth presentation as a sub-page of Estonia. Pretty easy call here, it would seem. Wikipedia is not paper, etc. Carrite (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just a periodization of Estonian history then it should be called History of Estonia (1918-1940), otherwise it remains a POV fork. --Nug (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Truly, it is difficult to see any meaningful information added to this article, which would not be already present in 'Estonia' or 'History of Estonia'. Also, the POV issue. Oth (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an appropriate way to divide the History of Estonia. The history of this country in this period seems to be woefully ill-recorded in WP, unless I have missed something. The general history article describes the attainment of indepenedence, then covers the following period in one short paragraph. The section has a main template leading to events of 1934-40, but I see nothing on 1920-34, not even a list of presidents. I agree the present article is not a good one, but teh solution is to improve it not delete it or merge it back to a mpre general article. It may be a fork, but cannot be a POV fork unless someone can point to where it is forked from. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a POV fork of Republic of Estonia, implying that the pre-war state was a separate and distinct entity, but in fact it is the same according to reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The appropriate title for a period article would be History of Estonia (1918-1940). Therefore this is not a period article but a country article implying a Republic of Estonia other than the current one existed in 1918-1940 (see, e.g. Slovak Republic (1939–45)), which is wrong. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2015 (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) 01:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the proper way to divide Estonian history per Peterkingiron. A completely appropriate way to divide a section of its history. As Carrite says its pretty open and shut. It isn't POV because that is what the name was at that point in time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove the former country infobox and rename it History of Estonia (1918-1940) (which would still be an unnecessary sub-article given the size of History of Estonia), otherwise it remains a POV fork of Republic of Estonia, since the use of a former country infobox indicates the intent to push the POV that it was a separate former republic when the consensus in reliable sources tells us that it was in fact same and continuous with Republic of Estonia. --Nug (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by the wikipedian style title Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) gives impression that there was a republic that existed from 1918 to 1940, but in reality the Republic of Estonia exists from 1918 to this day and 1918-1940 is a period inside this existence, hence History of Estonia (1918-1940). Same styling: History of Poland (1945–89), History of the Soviet Union (1927–53), History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002).

The Baltic states, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991. This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, or as a matter of law, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991. Continue reading here --Klõps (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Superfluous article, all of the relevant content is already covered elsewhere in depth. Why is there even a deletion discussion, just creating redirect to Estonia would have been sufficient. There are no sources showing Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) as an separate entity from Republic of Estonia, so unless such sources are found and presented, the whole article needs to be blanked anyway under WP:Verifiability. --Sander Säde 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Arab World

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

Non-notable beauty pageant. No independent refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I easily found a NY Times article, a RT (Russian Times and Reuters article at the LA Times plus several others. --Spshu (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is there and has coverage. The notability needs to be established more though. - Pmedema (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2015 (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) 01:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include [36], [37], [38], [39]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Total failure of WP:BEFORE. (Non-admin closure). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7½ Phere

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

Relevance and notability of a non-English-language movie not shown outside of India on the English Wikipedia. No sources - much less primarily English-language sources - have been cited for why it is notable other than existing as a movie production, nor demonstrating notability to people who live outside of India: a link to the IMDB entry does not suffice. For that matter, the movie didn't even review well in the first place within India, leading one to question even further why this film is considered notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not the IMDB, and the IMDB exists for exactly the purpose of cataloging movies and TV regardless of notability or origin. A quick search reveals precisely zero coverage by reliable (much less themselves notable) 3rd-party sources or coverage of any note/value in the English language aside from a short synopsis in the Hindustan times which is of no encyclopedic value, and does not confer, imply or describe any notability.

((Addressed to the article author/maintainer: Simply being made as a movie is NOT inherent notability: the Wikipedia is not, I repeat ***NOT*** the IMDB. See WP:NOTFILM, and you will find this movie does not appear to fulfill the basic criteria for establishing notability regarding films.)) besieged^talk 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Snow Nominator doesn't the know basics.

Being the English Wikipedia means what is written on Wikipedia should be in English, not the subjects or references. Wish it were true, then there wouldn't be so much Kpop, Jpop, Anime and footballers.
English is one of the two national languages of India. India contains the 2nd largest group of English speakers of any nation, just after the US.
Doesn't matter where any film is made or shown as long as there are references in any language to support GNG
There are enough English references to show that it meets GNG. This doesn't even count the Hindi sources. Bgwhite (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It appears to me that WP:BEFORE was not performed in this particular case. Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires, "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources" not that sources about a subject must exists in places other the origin of subject. Sources provided above by Bgwhile, clearly establish notability of the film per WP:NF and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article and what is about have enough notability and relevance, it's so unfortunate that such a notability evaluation has done. Please remove deletion notice from the article immediately, otherwise readers might think they are reading on Uncyclopedia.
(harith (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Clarification I believe I should clarify here that I am not asserting that a lack of English-language coverage makes this film non-notable, but rather that the film simply fails notability on ANY grounds, and that the existence of coverage in English would be a strong argument for this movie being notable. However, there is absolutely nothing about this film that passes the standard guidelines of notability in any way besides the simple fact that it exists, which is not a valid reason. Otherwise we'd be cataloging every movie ever made on this wiki, which is patently not happening, and not policy: as above, that's what the IMDB is for.

I have no desire to debate the "English in India" topic: * Keep – This article and what is about have enough notability and relevance, it's not the actual issue here, nor why the article was nominated. In fact, as you point out, if English is India's official second language, then there SHOULD be coverage in English of this film IF it were, in fact, notable, yet there is nothing of any value besides a short synopsis in the Hindustan times which itself does nothing to confer notability per WP:MOVIE, nor anything else readily available detailing why this film is of any more note than any other generic romantic comedy movie which has received no awards of note nor made any technical or cinematographic accomplishments, breakthrough's etc., that would qualify it for an article on this site. It isso unfortunate that such a notability evaluation has done. Please remove deletion notice from the article immediately, otherwise just one of thousands of generic low-grade films that could be made anywhere in the world and still not be notable precisely because it is so generic.

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Also,

The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)[5]
The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.[6]

As far as I can tell, it does not pass notability on any of these grounds, though I am, of course, unable to read Indian-language articles to determine if it has received two or more "full-length reviews" by nationally known critics, or even of determining if a critic is in fact nationally known in India; therefore, I believe it is reasonable to say that unless/until someone can specifically cite (with references) which of the above grounds applies this film does not pass the notability test, regardless of whether some people have latched on to and taken offense from misreading my comments and presuming I have some sort of pro-English/anti-Indian bias/bigotry, which is absolutely not the case. As above, I brought up English only because it would lend weight to notability claims, not because I believe only English sources are valid. Simply having a synopsis blurb a paragraph long on a website doesn't satisfy the above requirements per WP:MOVIE. besieged^talk 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy keep per easily meeting WP:NF and snow close. I was sorely tempted to close this early myself per the nominator's many errors and his poor "quick search", but hope that an expanded explanation may help him in his future edits. Apparently, the article was brought here because it was unsourced, when even a minimal WP:BEFORE would have shown multiple sources available.[40][41] He mentioned IMDB in a dismissive manner up above but fails to note that even IT listed numerous reviews.[42]... some quite substantive and even one in German An article being unsourced is not a valid deletion criteria. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their use or not within an article. And in looking at WP:NF, if the GNG is met, we do not ignore it and look to "other attributes to consider" which are NOT notability criteria, but are set only to encourage due diligence. An Indian film does not have to be notable outside of India and he grants an inability to read or find possible Hindi sources, so I would encourage him please, to avoid areas he admits to being unable to judge. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep, easily meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG. Basically a WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone 11:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Cancer

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

Fails WP:Band Gaff (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (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) 00:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not appear to meet WP:BAND since there is very little coverage in independent reliable sources. Everymorning talk 02:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in agreement with above. Not notable per available sources. Fylbecatulous talk 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Number 5 7 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kahloon clan

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

There is no explanation on why this group of people is notable. The source cited just mentions it in passing (no significant coverage). Google Search cannot find any reliable sources [43]. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije The name of the clan is Kahlon or Kahloon, the only reason why I put clan was to differentiate from the main page Kahloon. Here is more references other than the one reference provided (Kahlon is more common name):

[44]

--Nawabmalhi (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough content outside this website for confirming any notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at these google searches: [45] [46], the subject matter is notable. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What they have described about the clan? You believe that there is any scope? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nawabmalhi: Google search is not a source per se. I used Google search to show that there are no sources. Sources are needed to establish the notability. Could you provide us a reliable source that significantly covers this subject? Vanjagenije (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title Kahloon is no where mentioned in the Sources. Article has no significance. The subject and contents do not qualify for a separate article. --Mahi 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment I am going to remove this source because we do not use stuff published by Gyan. I've also removed this because it is a reprint of a Raj census, which is notoriously unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but passing mentions, almost all of which are from unreliable Raj sources. Basically, people bearing this name were enumerated in censuses that are now considered to be pretty useless exercises. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush,Bladesmulti, Vanjagenije What about these: [47], Punjab, the land of beauty, love, and mysticism by Syed Abdul Qudoos Pg. 213 here is quote: 'The same tribe is Rajput in one district and Jat in another according to the position in local tribes. ... The important (Muslim) Jat tribes are as under:- Bajwa, Chatta, Cheema, Randhawa, Ghammon, Buta, Kahlon, Gil, Sehota, Tarrur, Waraich, ...' --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First one is one snippet book, would be helpful if you provide a quote. Second one is mention of Javed Safdar Kahlon which is irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The book is just another listing, and neither the author nor the publisher are known to me. I've got no idea why he thinks they are an "important" tribe. The newspaper source is even worse and I've lost track of the number of times I've tried to explain to you that we cannot assume that someone bearing a particular name is affiliated with a particular clan. If we could, then Helen Reddy would have roots in south India and I am 99% certain she does not. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush, sorry for the confusion on the Newspaper Javed Safdar and Abrar-ul-Haq are both Kahlon and I was reffering to this quote: 'As a wealthy Jat in a constituency where Jats are the largest, though a generally poor, biradiri, Haq is relying on two factors to help him win vote...' . Now turning to the book the author and publishing company seem reliable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawabmalhi (talk • contribs) 19:13 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I have added two new sources that are not raj. Their existence is further bolstered through the Google searches and Raj sources, I think deletion is overstepping in this particular scenario as referencing is not too difficult. And they are many sources in hindi, urdu, and punjabi which back their existence. I think the task should be restoration and authentication in relation to articles on Jat people.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:GNG. Mere existence is not a reason to keep. No-one here is denying that people called Kahlon exist. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming disturbing, I agree. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is a raj census? Do you mean any census taken under the Empire of India? Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nyttend yes they are census' taken during British Raj. These census along with most sources published during the Raj are not considered that reliable when it comes to any sort of history because they are exaggerated and exenorated acounts taken from different tribes describing their origin and history.

However when it comes to proof of existence of certain tribe or entity they are relatively reliable but use beyond this on Wikipedia is not recommended because figuring out what is fact or myth becomes complicated and deciphering the sources and interpreting sources will be original research.

As a side note a census is more reliable than any published Raj source. Nawabmalhi (talk)

@Nyttend: See User:Sitush/sandbox3 for a (very slow-developing) draft about the Raj census operations. And yet again, Nawabmalhi, I must point out that mere existence is insufficient for retention. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a much larger issue and one articles deletion is not a big deal. So if concensus is present, I suggest we close this discussion. Also for future reference, which part of WP:GNG does this article not meet right now? ---Nawabmalhi (talk)

Well, the opening sentence says it all: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ..." We have no significant coverage in reliable sources, and a part of the reason why those sources are not reliable is because they are not independent and instead just took the word of those whom they interviewed (as you have pretty much said yourself in an earlier comment here). - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reliable sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Gardner

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

Seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS, in that there is no detail to the biography or assertion of notability outside of reporting of their death; a look for sources from the usual channels produced no better sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - seem to have gotten considerable press for her tv appearance. her murder also got coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. If the decision is keep, move to Murder of Brianna Gardner, since she only rose to prominence after her death. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article creator is developing a worrying track record of non-notable biographies. St Anselm (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2014 (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) 00:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MURDEROF, tragic but not notable. Vrac (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & NOTNEWS - Whilst it's sad someone dying, we don't have articles on every single person in the world who's died. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole thing is heartbreaking (especially the comment the judge made, given what later happened to her) but unfortunately this murder didn't get enough coverage to warrant Gardener having an article. Other than a brief spate of coverage when her body was discovered, Gardener didn't gain any additional coverage after that point - no follow up stories, no coverage on ID, or anything that would potentially help provide notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ip Tai Tak

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

No claims of notability and no independent sources. It doesn't matter who his teacher was since notability is not inherited and the only two sources are by one of his students. There's also nothing to indicate he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists.Jakejr (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG since there are no independent sources and there's no evidence he meets anything in WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.ch (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Urbina

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

He was a youth boxer who was beaten to death in 2013. He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and all of the coverage is on his murder, so WP:BLP1E applies and WP:GNG is not met.Jakejr (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe murder coverage meets WP:GNG--tragic but not sure worth a individual Wikipedia pageBoxexpo2015 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I honestly see enough sources to support it. Lor^Talk 02:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please indicate where the significant coverage is that is unrelated to his murder? Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like all murders it's a tragedy, but I don't see that he would be notable otherwise. It appears to me that it's a case of someone being notable for one event and I don't believe that's enough reason to keep this article. Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He wouldn't be notable without the coverage of his murder and that is nothing out of the ordinary for victims. Mdtemp (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Travis

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

Pro wrestler with no independent sources. Only references are from the wrestling organization that employed him.Jakejr (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple of mentions in local papers, but not what I would call significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: worth also searching for coverage under his stage name, Kastor LeVay. TheBlueCanoe 17:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one and two mentions in nine WP:PW/RS indicates a lack of exposure and success in this field of wrestling. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.LM2000 (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Valle

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep - The article has a reference that indicates he made one appearance in the Primera for Colo-Colo (only because the club played an entire squad of reserves while the regular team competed in the Libertadores), ~~but I don't think that's enough to make him notable without more evidence the article could satisfy the GNG~~ but another reference indicates he appeared several times in the Primera for Colo-Colo and there is some coverage of his short spell with Jacksonville in the A-League (which possibly is fully-pro) so I think the GNG could be satisfied after all (this interview with El Mercurio is non-routine coverage, but doesn't indicate he's really noteworthy). ~~I could be convinced to keep if there was more significant coverage available, but I'm not finding it online.~~ Jogurney (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Was the chilean league professional back in the early 90's?Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not. I remembered a US goalkeeper who played in the Primera during this period, and he is reported to have only been paid room and board during his first season with U. Católica (see this story) - which calls into doubt it's degree of professionalism at that time. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Given his age his small number of WP:FPL appearances mean that he hardly fulfills the current consensus that older / retired players must have made some impact in these leagues, not just appeared very occasionally. There does however seem to be some degree of coverage. I would prefer to see this article expanded to show GNG rather than deleted. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully professional league. IJA (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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