Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 May	6 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over Rev![edit]

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

Non notable manga series. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books and browser) found nothing at all and a search News Japan found some results but are probably something else. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Physics[edit]

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

This appears to be a random book by a non-notable author, added when the Wikipedia world was young in 2004. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not indicate that subject meets WP:BKCRIT criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already had one good reference, a review of the book in Nature, and I just added three more reviews from other reliable journals. So it clearly passes WP:BKCRIT #1 (subject of two or more non-trivial published reviews) and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein's multiple review finds. --Mark viking (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per David Eppsteins comment, and the nominator says the author is non-notable, but he has his own Wikipedia article David Goodsell. Christian75 (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author non-notable - David Goodsell did art for the book. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; you are right Christian75 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't have a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't mean he's not notable. As a fellow of the APS he passes WP:PROF#C3 and his high citation counts likely also give him a pass of #C1. He also won a notable award, the Emily M. Gray Award. In any case, it's not very relevant to the separate notability of this book. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep in light of David Eppstein's findings. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD A7 No explanation of the subject's significance (real person). Which is being kind. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Carmichael[edit]

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

Can someone please burn this unsourced BLP with elements of hoaxishness with fire? It was speedied (as spam for some reason!) and the speedy removed by a user who is not the author, and I'd rather not wait the seven days for a PROD to run its course. WP:BLOWITUP. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omniocracy[edit]

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

The article in this current form is promotion of neologism. It should be either deleted or completely rewritten, if there are reliable sources, which I can't find myself Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. The term is discussed in four books and those books are listed. If you do a Google search in "Books," you will see some of the pages within those books that discuss this term. I was invited 10 years ago by a higher up person at Wikipedia to create a page for this term. I did not do it then because at the time there were only a few articles on the subject. But now, in addition to articles, there are 4 books! I have heard omniocracy discussed at animal rights conventions and in speeches within the movement. It is an important word that describes a government with representation for all living beings. Animal interests need to be represented on Wikipedia, too. It should not only be a platform to promote only humans and only human-centered forms of government! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracaluncle (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lauracaluncle: Wikipedia is not used for promotion of any kind; animal, human, or otherwise. The existence of articles on a topic doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses the subject matter. Articles should exist when (and only when) the subject is sufficiently notable and verifiable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage about this proposed form of government in reliable sources. WP:NEO states that finding sources which simply use the term does not establish sufficient coverage. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that this article stay. I have heard the term used among animal activists in the U.S. and think the aforementioned citations are sufficient and reliable. Omniocracy should not be a candidate for deletion. Do Not Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenclaude (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability given. This appearst to be neologism.--Rpclod (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Kobayashi (actress)[edit]

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

Delete: insufficient notability per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 21:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Very easily passes WP:GNG. She not only was a popular TV personality, but she married the most popular young kabuki actor. There are numerous articles about her or them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. etc. There's even some in English: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. Even the Wall Street Journal: [21]. May I ask if the nominator tried to search for these before nominating this for AfD, per WP:BEFORE? Michitaro (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references provided in article do not indicate that WP:ENTERTAINER notability criteria is met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree, even if she fails WP:ENTERTAINER (which should not be judged by what is in the article but by what is out there, per WP:NRVE), she is notable if she passes WP:GNG. See WP:BASIC.Michitaro (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found - They're not perfect by all means but notability does seem to be there. –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which override WP:ENTERTAINER. Cavarrone 16:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Services Company[edit]

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

Prod was removed along with some promo content, but there are still no real sources or indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 20:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article references do not demonstrate that WP:ORG notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No true 3rd party references. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches including at News only found a local TV news link here and one link at Books while finally Highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing. The company is growing but not at a speed that would suggest notability through significant and in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endrit Elshani[edit]

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

Contested prod-singer with questionable notability. He falls under too soon as well. Wgolf (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources provided.--Rpclod (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be a language barrier here but if he's only released two albums within the past year, that likely means he is not notable and the "charts" info is unconfirmed. The searches I performed found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Britt[edit]

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

Non notable actor, Fails GNG - Despite him starring in various shows I can't find anything on him, Sources in the article are Facebook, IMDb and Blogspot - Other than those I can't find anything and judging by the last AFD no one else could either .... –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate that WP:ENTERTAINER notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as he has not established significant notability and News searches found nothing while browser searches found news links for his two main shows One True Love Dahil sa-pag-ibig, such as this. The other alternative is to redirect to one of these shows, maybe One True Love as he had over 80 episode appearances. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tad Hill[edit]

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

I am not finding any evidence in reliable, independent sources that this individual meets notability requirements. Of the claim that "Hill has been featured as one of today’s leading financial professionals in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek magazine, and on CNBC, Fox, and ABC" I could verify only that he was interviewed briefly on CNBC. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline notability at best; borderline promotionalism. The combination isa reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - press releases do not qualify as reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, multiple searches found no significant or notable links (mostly press releases), the only thing from a good website was an event listing. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Crossett[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GRIDIRON. I've found articles saying that he was waived and resigned. I've also found that he appeared in the 2008 Pro Football Hall of Fame Game and a 2013 Colts preseason game. However, I've haven't found any articles mentioning he was in a Colts regular season game. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referenced NFL.com page indicates that notability criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a regular season NFL game. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and no indication he meets WP:NCOLLATH. Article also has no sources to show he meets GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:GRIDIRON. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. At any rate no consensus to delete. It may be useful to continue discussion about whether and how this content should be merged with related articles, but opinion here seems to be roughly divided about that. Sandstein 08:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community[edit]

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

This is mostly redundant to Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions, which deals with a wider scope of sexual abuse cases within religious groups in New York City. This article has too narrow of a scope, and much of the article is either defamation or quotes from non-neutral points of view. Also, this is a WP:BLP violation and although this is certainly part of a notable trend, this is too overly detailed and probably not notable by itself. I suggest a merge. Epic Genius (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is a previous discussion under another name, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community -- Y not? 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously a notable and discrete topic per sources. Nominator's arguments are very weak. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the relevant content in Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions should be merged here, not the other way around. The eg. basketball program cases are random incidents united by the fact that they happened to take place in NYC, while a number of reliable sources have identified abuse in the NY Haredi community as a discrete issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is but one facet of a larger topic. The sources provided support a greater trend of child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community is given too much undue weight, so that's why I am suggesting a merge. Epic Genius (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is other related topics for other articles, but this is a major topic of its own and has been discussed separately. However, the material should in any case be covered in one or the other , not in both. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your rationale carefully, you are clearly !voting "Merge or Delete (but keep discussion elsewhere) or Keep (but delete discussion elsewhere)" (you write: "the material should in any case be covered in one or the other, not in both"), though the header to your discussion might mislead some to misunderstand that. Let us know if my understanding is at all incorrect. Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions per nom. Most of the information has already been incorporated there. The present article does look like a sounding board for non-neutral POV by the New York Post and The New York Times, and its narrow focus, in light of the larger article, fails WP:UNDUE. Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my opinion in the prior AfD. Individual BLP violations within the article (to the extent they exist) should absolutely be dealt with by removing the offending text - not by the deleting the whole article. -- Y not? 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the prevalence of findings within a single group. There is precedent in the article about sexual abuse within the Catholic Church [[22]]. I sympathize with complaints about sources of the New York Post but I cannot agree with Yoninah that the New York Times is a non-neutral POV. BrandenburgG (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article describes a notable phenomenon. I am less happy with the list of "notable cases", and just removed two people from that list who were not convicted. I would consider removing the list of notable cases, but pending that, it is important that the list hold to the highest of scrutiny regarding the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: My edit was partially undone, in that the information was restored, but the names removed. I have no problem with that, as long as we are very careful with this article. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per DGG, the articles could either be merged or the redundant text removed from the article Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. Epic Genius (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or ... Agree with Epic. Per DGG, the articles could either be merged, or the article deleted (but content remain elsewhere), or kept but only if the redundant text is removed from the article Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As nom says, some of the material belongs in Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions, and some in Charles J. Hynes. But let us be be very cautions about slandering groups. The article itself note that " the rate of sex abuse within Haredi communities is roughly the same as anywhere else". But the mere fact of having a special article on sexual abuse in this community and not in other communities inevitably gives the impression that this community has a outsize rate of abuse. Note that we are talking about a identity/ethnic/religious community, not an institution as in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. This is the equivalent of having an article on Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Dominican Catholic community. We don't have an article on Sexual abuse cases in England's Muslim community, we have an articles on the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale sex trafficking gang, the Oxford sex gang, the Bristol sex gang, the Telford sex gang and the Peterborough sex abuse case, but not an article smearing the entire British Muslim identity/ethnic/religious community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions to the extent possible. However, it seems like a lot of information in this article either violates WP:BLP or WP:NPOV or else is redundant of material already in Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions, so I'm not sure what would be left to merge once all of the violating or redundant material was edited out. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- there's more than enough that is distinctive about this topic to justify a separate article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - This is a singling out of a religious community. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, or merge. Ism schism (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's equal opportunity. Cf. Category:Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States -- Y not? 14:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But we don't have a separate article about Christian sexual abuse cases in New York City, despite the fact that content about that topic is in the Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions article. Not really equal opportunity... Epic Genius (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content in this article is about a specific set of cases. This content would be WP:UNDUE in any article covering these sorts of crimes generally rather than these specific cases. For that reason, these should not be merged. The content itself meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke[edit]

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

The page does not adequately reference significant sources. There is heavy reliance on only one source and content is not available at that source. There's a lack of verifiable sources and they do not substantiate the person's notability. Anonymous032 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. The single source is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I believe what this user means by "content is not available" is that he does not have an online subscription and can't be bothered to find a hardcopy at some library. The article certainly can be improved, but this AfD is a pointless waste of time. Choor monster (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, this is a malformed entry. There is no Editing Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke article to be discussed. Malformed AfD notice from the original article has been removed. Proposer is welcome to try again, but it's a pointless exercise, since everyone in ODNB is notable from the get-go. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this AfD was malformed when originally filed, I have now fixed the formatting and transcluded it on the log page. Hut 8.5 18:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG as the subject is discussed in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry cited in the article. I've seen the entry, it is clearly significant coverage and goes into detail about the subject's life and their role in the conflicts of the period (695 words are devoted to the subject specifically). I can only assume that "content is not available at that source" means "the source is not available for free on the internet to everyone", but there certainly isn't any policy or guideline against the use of such sources and they are widely used. Sources do have to be published, but the ODNB is and I was able to read this entry for free with a library card. Hut 8.5 19:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Keep and Block Nominator This AfD is purely disruptive and the nominators has already been reported to WP:AIV. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Corporate Ltd.[edit]

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

No reliable independent refs. No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article references do not provide any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources of information. What comes up is a lot of links for Axis Bank, which is something else altogether. Note: created by user User:Axiscorporateuk, who, should he/she read this, should spend a few moments at the page policy on conflict of interest. LaMona (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Coaching (Youth Soccer Coaching Program)[edit]

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

Non-notable coaching method fails WP:GNG as it lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article about the creator of this technique (Robert Harrington (English Soccer Coach) has been speedied as A7. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, promotional fluffpiece. Giant Snowman 19:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okano Hajime[edit]

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

Un-notable author DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only "reference" shows soft porn?--Rpclod (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Cumpiano[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable person. Article reads like a LinkedIn page.

Delete - being quoted does not make one notable.--Rpclod (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. Should be better written but the guy headed a major government agency, the prfda. Try deleting a gringo head of the FAA or EPA.....no Ebola blood (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC) — Ebola blood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG, and of course quotes from a person are explicitly disallowed from supporting the notability of the person. The Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration is not, in fact, a "major government agency," but a glorified lobbying group, even if agency heads were automatically notable under WP:POLITICIAN, which they're not. As far as "gringo" AfDs, go, perhaps "Ebola blood" might trouble himself to look at the other AfDs filed this day. He'll see some. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as it fails GNG. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ― Padenton|✉ 22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baka (word)[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:NOTDICT. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Edit: No objection to Redirect to wiktionary entry or article rewrite (added 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)) ― Padenton|✉ 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this goes far beyond a simple dictionary entry. This is discussing the concept more than just giving a definition. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article in question is not substituting for a dictionary entry, it's a full on article about the word. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you provide an example of where it discusses the concept? The sections in this article: History, etymology, related words, meanings, usages, pragmatics, these are all things that belong in a dictionary. It's an excellent, thorough entry, but I'm not seeing where it crosses over from being a dictionary into being encyclopedic content. ― Padenton|✉ 18:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Go read the article. The entire thing is discussing the word as a concept. A dictionary entry looks like this: wikt:ばか. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Statements like "Baka, which originated as a 14th-century literary insult, has become "the most commonly used" swearword in contemporary Japanese", "The linguistic pragmatics of using insults like baka can be language specific. For instance, Japanese has fewer words for calling someone a "fool" than English", and "During World War II, baka was American military slang for the Japanese Ohka 櫻花 (lit. "Cherry Blossom") kamikaze flying bomb" go well beyond dictionary information. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. The term appears to have a significant notability that goes beyond its definition; also, not that this makes it automatically notable, but there are six other Wikipedia articles in other languages about this word (Russian, Spanish, German, Chinese etc). The Japanese article in particular is significantly lengthy, which in my view is a good indicator of prominence. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not a dictionary definition. Since when did dictionaries have detailed descriptions on etymology, history and cultural context? Just like our encyclopedia articles on thou, you, irregardless, hello, comprised of, fuck and shit, if there is content which focuses outside of the traditional scope of a dictionary, then it is an encyclopedia article and not a dictionary definition entry. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that some of the rationales for deletion herein are subjective, such as "Obvious reasons" and "Not an encyclopedic content", and are not guideline- or policy-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Hulk[edit]

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

Not notable at all / Fails to show notability KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been the subject of significant coverage by several major news organisations including NPR, the Huffington Post, and boston.com's Boston Globe ideas section. I'll be honest here, WP:IDONTLIKEIT either but that is not a reason for deletion and it clearly passes WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No different from any other Twitter parody account - No evidence of notability to warrant an article, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010:Can you explain how the coverage this subject has received fails GNG? Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Bar the Huffington Post the rest are pretty crappy sources and I'm surprised you consider them fine, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Obvious reasons. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Twitter parody account. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic content. aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 22:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. At the article's talk page, an IP supported a delete and a user supported a keep. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've kept notable Twitter account articles before. It's unusual in that it blends feminist rhetoric with a hypermasculine comic book hero. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. (See Boston Globe, NPR, Salon, Bust, Ms. magazine) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 10:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has enough reliable references though I suppose it will eventually lose its notability as time marches on and another form of social media makes people wonder if Twitter and 8-track-tape players existed at the same time. Bfpage |leave a message 20:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gobonobo's links show that the subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The above deletion arguments have no backing in policy. czar ⨹ 01:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage from multiple different sorts of references. — Cirt (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gobonobo's sources look to demonstrate sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the most notable memes of the 2010s and passes WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given that multiple sources were added subsequent to the last comment here, most "delete" opinions appear to be superseded. However, contributors note an overlap with Gaze#The "male gaze" in feminist theory, which should be editorially remedied. Sandstein 08:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The male gaze[edit]

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

Neologism with no sources showing importance beyond usage sourced to one paper from the inventor of the neologism. SPACKlick (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is better covered in Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory. However, the nom would do better to follow the recommendations of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. This topic is a fairly central concept in feminist philosophy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You presume I didn't. The term is heavily used. That doesn't mean discussion of the content of the term merits and article. I didn't find significant papers ABOUT the male gaze in a search of either psychological or sociological journals. Although I found plenty using the term. SPACKlick (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed) per sources found on JSTOR below. Cleanup is needed however, and this article needs more than a single paper by the term's inventor as a source. Gaze also needs to trim the male gaze section as it is completely undue within that article. ― Padenton|✉ 14:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Already explained thoroughly in the section mentioned by Sammy1339. Though I would also shorten that section to about a paragraph, maybe two, as it's essentially discussing the same thing as the main subject of Gaze. ― Padenton|✉ 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was some talk on another page about merging it, but it is definitely a neologism, so we shouldn't have it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term which was coined in 1975 has since entered pretty much all fields of (social) study including but not limited to film studies, psychology, communications studies, sociology etc. It is a much researched academic concept, the first page of Google Scholar results shows that a very diverse set of academic disciplines deals with the male gaze, papers on the male gaze are published in academic journals such as Representations, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, Computers and Composition, Consumption, Markets and Culture, and many more. The subject itself is clearly notable and should have its own page. Unfortunately, the article is in a frightful state at the moment but that's not a reason for deletion. --SonicY (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonicyouth86: Did you look at the above votes? --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too read Mulvey's work while in grad school: it is or was influential, and is well-covered at Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory as well as in Mulvey's bio article. I don't understand why it wasn't just redirected as tagged and why it's here at Afd. No one on the talk page argued in favour of keeping it as a standalone article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonicyouth86: Since you're the only one who's voted keep, would you object to a redirect per Shawn in Montreal's comment? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough scholarly research on the male gaze to warrant a separate article. It isn't just concept in feminist theory, it has become a concept used in most academic disciplines. Take media studies, for example. You'll have difficulty finding a study on spectatorship in cinema, music videos, advertisement etc. that does not discuss the male gaze. At the same time, I understand why other editors voted delete. The current article and the section in the overview article give the wrong impression that it's this barely significant theory that's restricted to feminist studies. As I said, the article is in very bad shape and, unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to expand it and summarize the wealth of research dealing with the male gaze. --SonicY (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either Redirect to Gaze#The "male gaze" in feminist theory where it can remain in context to the rest of the article, OR Keep per multiple unused sources available and add those sources under WP:NRVE. I do agree that a redirect could have been done with no need for an AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Keep or merge. Is the nominator trying to make a joke that just isn't landing? This is a really big feminist + media studies concept, discussed in tons of sources, if they'd just bothered to actually look for sources (some of which are already cited in Gaze). It seems unintuitive to split this in a way that keeps theories influenced by it with it (imperial gaze - Kaplan cites Mulvey) while keeping what seem like precursors separate (Sartre and Foucault seem relevant, but Mulvey doesn't actually cite them in the influential essay), so I am indifferent to a keep or a merge, I think. If it's kept, re-title for MOS, no "the." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per rationale of Sonicyouth86, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it is a notable concept. Spumuq (talq) 13:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'll be seen as male chauvinist pigs if we delete it. Biscuittin (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I typed "male gaze" into JSTOR and there were countless journal entries about this concept:[23]. The male gaze clearly meets notability requirements and there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want this query instead [24] but point made. I've changed my vote above. ― Padenton|✉ 04:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has very low inclusion criteria and no attempt is being made here to meet them. This topic may be notable but until and unless this article is developed to cite 2-3 sources on this topic, then this concept should not exist as a Wikipedia article. Anyone who feels strongly enough to vote keep should also cite 2-3 sources which feature the subject of this article as the subject of the source. Right now this article cites one source and from the context of the wiki article as it is now, it is not clear to me that the source cited is about the subject of the article. The content goes in many directions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus herein for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hopkins[edit]

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

Against Deletion. Sources from Bleacher Report and International Gymnast Magazine added.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sources include links to her Facebook profile. Elgatodegato (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC

Support per nom. There's no independant coverage at all, and all the coverage that there isn't considered reliable. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and article appears to be written by a 12 year old for a class project ("Hopkins was definitely born on September 29 and it is expected she was born in 1983.") —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'tis the veriest, unsourceable advertising.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage of this person. If the gymternet was/is notable enough for an article, this could be redirected there. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person merely runs a website about gymnastics. This does not make her noteworthy in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.204.192 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original author has blanked the page, but I declined G7 speedy deletion, because other people have also edited the page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of major football clubs in Europe by major officials honours won[edit]

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

Wow, where do I start? No real definitions of a 'major club' or a 'major official honour'; this looks to be WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Simply not needed. Giant Snowman 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. Elgatodegato (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom CRwikiCA talk 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I was pleased to see that Ipswich Town are still classed as a "major football club in Europe", this really is laughable. Number 5 7 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NOTSTATS. There does appear to be inclusion criteria (you have to be in top 6 leagues in Europe, and all wins are included), but this list seems completely unnecessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: - the 'top 6' leagues is (seemingly) calculated using the UEFA coefficient, which changes annually - and refers to country, not actual league. So no, there aren't any real inclusion criteria. Giant Snowman 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the top 6 leagues are almost always the same every year. I agree it's a terrible list though. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irretrievably arbitrary POV. Unencyclopedic. --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no agreed definition of a "major club" (even if we accept the criterion of the top 6 leagues in Europe, then why 6? Why not 4, or 7 or 12?) so this article will by definition always be OR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it is encyclopedic to have such a list based on the current Top 6 UEFA leagues. Eldumpo (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWBALL? --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Bullying Helpline[edit]

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

WP:GNG Elgatodegato (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ as nominator. All the articles about it seem to be about the people running it and their scandals. Elgatodegato (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your !vote. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage in the UK, for example [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. It was a national organisation that was aimed to help millions of people, but received significant media attention when it failed, this passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems from their website that it reopened as a private firm in 2012. This has got significently less attention though. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've improved the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG: see [31] (HighBeam subscription needed), plus Joseph2302's sources. Esquivalience ^t 20:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joseph2302 & Esquivaliences sources, Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ample coverage of this entity and as such establishes notability. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sharpe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Elgatodegato (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ as nominator. Articles on him and his father were created by the same account that created those articles only. Only articles that linked to his article are about another Michael Sharpe. Elgatodegato (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your !vote. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; lots of sources but none that I can see as contributing towards reliable, independent coverage. His father is probably non-notable too. Frickeg (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a claim to notability here, let alone the sources for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 18:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gertler[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. "References" in the article are all peripheral and are not about the article subject. (i.e., "and x's manager, Andrew Gertler, said..." or "with his manager, Andrew Gertler") Article smacks of self-promotion. reddogsix (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom Elgatodegato (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good reliable sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete plenty of reliable sources just need to read them, they discuss the subject in great depth, see my full explanation on article's talk pageWHOISFANDOM (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — WHOISFANDOM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't Delete Agreeing with WHOISFANDOM here. Plenty of reliable info on this guy to fit significant coverage, reliability, and independent coverage. Ardensword1789 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Ardensword1789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Disagree just read an article in the sources that has plenty on him... also he's been on the TV news and in some print stuff here that's not listed in the article if anyone can find that too to add to the sources. But i think theres plenty. CatCatCatLover (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — CatCatCatLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment New users who's only contributions are to support WHOISFANDOM- looks like sockpuppets to me. I've started an investigation. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WHOISFANDOM. reddogsix (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to try to inherit notability from an alleged client.--Rpclod (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Rpclod in the aritlce you've linked to re: the subject inheriting notability from an alleged client... it specifies that " If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I would say that is grounds for keeping this article, along with the many other explanations provided, and the in depth articles on the topic. Your referencing / reasoning is improperly guided and again like everyone else you've seemed to not actually read the sources. I'd encourage everyone to do so before suggesting deletion. Also as my previous argument (seen on the article's talk page) specifies, this notabiltiy is not simply inherited. It is commented on and detailed in numerous articles. These articles may be titled about the subjects clients, but do go into depth about the subject as well and the subjects notability as an individual. In the first source in fact, there are 7 full paragraphs just about the subject and their notability. --WHOISFANDOM (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — WHOISFANDOM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Definitely some sockpuppet comments above, but the subject does display notability with the support provided in the article and is in complete accordance with both WP:GNG and WP:BIO so regardless should not delete on that basis. mb12427 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)— mb12427 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The removal requests here appear to be on the basis of self-creation, and if so this should be investigated and the users involved removed from Wiki. But that aside, this article itself appears to fit the guidelines for a biographic article of a publicly known & notable figure. Some sources used are only passing mentions, but most do go into depth on the subject to some extent, including one article about the subject in HitQuarters (which from a brief search I did, and it's wikipedia aritcle which says the publication is noted for it's "in depth interviews with industry figures" I have found this to mean it is a reputable music industry publication. It has also done interviews with Simon Cowell and many other popular artist managers. The Billboard source also provided goes into depth on the subject as well and that to my knowledge is another reliable and indepedent source. So I would not remove the article. jeckellandhyde 13:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)— jeckellandhyde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - If one looks at the HitQuarters article, one will note the article is a primary source and is not secondary in nature. Again, the article is not supported by non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I do think you are right in that much of the article by HitQuarters is primary source as it is interview content, but there is also secondary commentary from the publication in the article as well, including HitQuarters noting that he is a "key contributor" to the artist's success. Also, HitQuarters is a publication reliable and known to only interview notable industry figures, and the Billboard, New York Times, Guardian, Mashable, and other 5-6 sources are all entirely secondary, and all note the industry & public importance of the subject, which would certainly make the subject notable and grounds for encyclopedic inclusion and not deletion. jeckellandhyde 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)— jeckellandhyde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - A brief paragraph in the HitQuarters article is far from significant secondary coverage and I'll say it again, "References" in the article are all peripheral and are not about the article subject. (i.e., "and x's manager, Andrew Gertler, said..." or "with his manager, Andrew Gertler") reddogsix (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis that there is continued plus significant and dedicated coverage on the matter for over a year. Nerbbauman (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)— Nerbbauman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I'll say it again, the coverage is far from significant and the "References" in the article are all peripheral and are not about the article subject. (i.e., "and x's manager, Andrew Gertler, said..." or "with his manager, Andrew Gertler") reddogsix (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This displays all characteristics of notability. There are multiple events of notability between the signings of multiple popular artists all with reliable and independent sources. The subject is credited as notable in all of those sources as a main contributor/reason for those successes. The coverage doesn't seem to include many articles that are entirely about the subject as per reddogsix, but that is not grounds for deletion. Within those articles there is still significant coverage on the subject, including multi-paragrph full biographic coverage giving his history, why it is a notable history, and some articles that continue to tell an entire story about the subject as the driving force behind the artists' successes. (i.e. Andrew Gertler started at this job, introduced X to ____ record label, X got signed to ______ record label as a result. OR Andrew Gertler was a key contributor to X's success, here are the factors behind the success). All of these reasonings are present and are grounds for notability. There may be a peripheral comment here and there, but there is also a multitude of non-peripheral coverage as displayed. And 12 or so sources all consistently telling those stories over a period of multiple years is certainly significant coverage, in addition to a ton of articles found in a simple Google News search that are not used but also include the same significant coverage to establish notability. —HaRvEyWaRbUrN^TaLk 13:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)— HaRvEyWaRbUrN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment If the consensus is that this topic is notable or if there is no consensus regarding notability, AND if the current version is deemed to have been written by editors that have too much of a conflict of interest, then I would recommend a closure of either "send back to DRAFT-space" or WP:STARTOVER with no prejudice against (and even encouragement for, if there is a clear consensus that this person is notable) the creation of an article by editors with no conflict of interest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Update (note: this update is after Joseph2302's reply): In light of the results of the SPA I strongly recommend that if this closes as "no consensus regarding notability" that it be deleted under WP:STARTOVER with the logic being that Wikipedia's stance on not rewarding bad behavior should trump the normal "no consensus = default keep" at least in this instance. If this happens, the closing admin and other interested parties keep an eye out on who edits any re-created article. If there is an actual consensus that this person is notable but no consensus to keep this particular article, then my previous recommendation (which was not "strong" and which gave more options, including sending back to DRAFT) stands. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced they're notable, but would be fine with an experienced editor trying to write a new article about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not convinced the individual is notable and I am not sure the article would not be deleted with the delete comments in the AfD. The article could still be recreated if better resources are established. reddogsix (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment As per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WHOISFANDOM, I have struck out the comments of all the confirmed, definite sockpuppets. If I've done this incorrectly, please feel free to amend (unless you're a sockpuppet). I've kept Nerbbauman's comment, as they aren't 100% confirmed sock, so it's up to admins to decide that. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Mihalca de Dolha and Petrova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD was a dud; let's hope this one is more conclusive. I have no particular comments to add from what I said there, except that neither of the two "sources" added in the interim demonstrate notability, either. One of them is a blog post, and isn't citable for anything. Another deals with the family of the subject's wife in the years 1749-1769, which has no bearing on the subject's notability, given that a) he came from another family and b) he married in 1924, over a century and a half after the period discussed in the book being cited. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Elgatodegato (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO, although if the sources (which are in Romanian) are bad, then it definitely fails. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost no sources (Romanian included) —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time (2015)[edit]

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

Article is about an unreleased film that is not covered in reliable sources. Fails WP:NYF and WP:NF. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON, No objections to recreation once more concrete sources & info comes up. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS - I was unaware it was gonna be released on the 29th - Don't see much point deleting and personally I don't see much point in moving to Draft as it'll only end up being moved back but meh thats my 2cents on it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - Personally see it as an utter waste of time but meh no point ranting about it and it's better than it being deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 03:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Alt: WP:INDAFD Promod Kashyap, Prime Time Saranay Entertainment, Prime Time Prime Time} (2015)

Send to draft-space as, while the film is apparently complete and set for release on 3 weeks, it does not have coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow return to asrticle space after release and only if it gets the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As per MichaelQSchmidt. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 - Perhaps It's simply my lack of understanding but what would be the point in moving it to draft if after 2 weeks and a few days It'll be moved back again ... It's just a waste of time and effort surely ? –Davey2010^Talk 03:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own source searches have not provided significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Two of the three references in the article are not what I would consider to be from reliable sources, and the remaining one, while reliable, does not provide significant coverage. At this time, an article in main namespace is not qualified. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kabedon[edit]

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

This looks like just a word from manga or anime world Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article itself needs cleanup, but that's not why we're here. The term has received some coverage in major news sources, so it's notable per GNG. APerson (talk!) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP is not a dictionary. '壁ドン' is a rather marginal Japanese slang word that means "banging on the wall", and this word has at least two distinct applications: to banging on the wall to alert a neighbour, and banging(?) (really, 'pinning') a girl against the wall. Of course, for any Japanese word you may find an article which mentions it, but this does not make the Japanese word into an English topic. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That a term is just from a specific area doesn't itself guarantee deletion. At the end, WP:GNG presides all. Refer to the reference list at ja:壁ドン (which ~~survived~~ was deleted by an AfD 2 years back at Sept 2013 and newly recreated in Aug 2014, presumably not similar to the deleted state) and the Japanese {{Find sources AFD}} for fuller consideration. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source I see include expanded coverage from just a dictionary definition. I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Japanese sound symbolism though as I have heard the usage of Doki Doki (Heart throb) more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a fad that is along the lines of Planking (fad). The fact that it is limited to Japan (and therefore most potential references are Japanese) does not mean it should be deleted. The sources are certainly out there, as it has received a lot of mentions in mainstream tv over the last year. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see this as being a simple dictionary term, this clearly has some developing social context and if it's being covered by the likes of Wired then it clearly has some notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Romeiro[edit]

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

I don't think Wikipedia should have an article on a living person that is totally unsourced. This seems to be translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia article which is also unsourced. Goggle searches turn up some books he has written and some news mentions, in Portuguese so I can not tell if it is the same person. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

needs sourcing User:Thoughtmonkey I totally take your point, it has no sources at all. On the other hand, Romeiro verifiably [32] is on the faculty of Mackenzie Presbyterian University and some of his several books sound scholarly(Evangelicos em crise) Is it usual to delete such articles, or to tag them for sourcing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged for lack of sources since 2011. My feeling is that the article is accurate and he is notable, but I don't think that is enough for WP to go on. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is alsp an article in the Portuguese WP. I do not know that language, but it looks similar. That has 3 external links as a source list. Since this is on a Brazilian, I would sugggest that the Portuguese WP is better placed to judge his notability; and it has not AFD notice. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links from the Portuguese article. They are presented as external links, not sources:

- - AGIR. Site do ministério de Paulo Romeiro, no qual há vários artigos dele e sua biografia.
  - Igreja Cristã da Trindade
  - Lançamento de Religião e Alienação, Editora Reflexão Thoughtmonkey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each of those links is dead :-(. LaMona (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk Here's the church website [33].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the link within that site about him [34] but of course this cannot be considered a reliable source since the church is his employer. It does say that he has written two books, both published by a religious publisher, Editora Mundo Cristão. I tried searching in some Brazilian newspapers that cover Sao Paulo, which appears to be where the church is, and came up with zero. I can find him on social sites (linked in, youtube, etc.) but not in reliable sources. So if someone has better access to Brazilian sources, they should speak up! I'm thinking that a churchman might be featured in popular magazines. LaMona (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources given.--Rpclod (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs RS. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question in AFD is not whether the page has sources (it does not) but whether sources exist to establish notability. WP:GNG If you search on Paulo Romeiro + Brazil, little appears. But if you search on Paulo Romeiro + Brasil, it turns out that there is an enormous, Portuguese speaking country with a publishing industry in Portuguese. We could, of course, change the rules to exclude sources that establish notability in other languages. But until we do, this question needs to be decided with Portuguese sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a swing at sourcing this page. Anyone with a google translate button (or a little Latin or Spanish) is welcome to help.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He might be notable but right now controversial claims are being made about him (for instance him having a connection to the anti-cult movement) without secondary sourcing. Borock (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centon Electronics[edit]

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

Non-notable company, I can't even find one good reference to help improve the article. Multiple searches through Google News, Books, newspapers and browser found nothing as shown here, here, here and here (mostly press releases). It actually seems that some of the most attention they got was a theft of millions of dollars of computer chips in 1995. I attempted several searches with the MLB, NASCAR, etc. partnerships but found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with ST, above. This firm is not WP:Notable. The theft of computer chips, though, could make an interesting article, per all these other articles about the phenomenon. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete expanding the coverage of the company into articles on the company and its principals is excessive coverage. If their careers other than with respect to the company do not demonstrate notability. And for that matter, the company article needs a check to see if it can be worded less promotionally DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Doppelmayr Garaventa Group. – czar 17:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liftbyggarna[edit]

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

WP:CORP notability unclear, no references excl. the homepage, endorsed PROD removed based on Google search hits. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I lost track while I was busy with the Mass de-PROD-ding, and I still want thanks also for Bots and IPs.

–Be..anyone (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Doppelmayr Garaventa Group. I confess I used Google translate, but according to the company's website, they were bought out in December 2013.[35] I'm pretty sure that's what happened, anyway. According to this, the company had 6 employees in 2014. I don't think that's reliable, but lacking better sources, it strongly suggests that this company is too small to expect independent notability. A redirect and a couple of sentences on the other article seems appropriate, though. Grayfell (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge. As above. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. J 1982 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essia Health[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ with references that are excellent PR and detail the process of being a medical scribe awfully well, but nothing is really about the org. I'm about to remove the AFC banners. The article may have them, but has not been reviewed and accepted, so it must take its chance as any draft article moved to main namespace. Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what should I add to the article that I missed? What kind of info are you talking about for the org? Let me know and I will make the changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbark (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. If these can be added then the issue changes and, potentially, vanishes. Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Craigbark (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)thanks got it[reply]

Not sure. It has some references, but I am not sure they are sufficient to establish real notability.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC) --Craigbark (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Has a decent amount of medical journals so I thought it was pretty notable based on the Journals I found and the legitimate news outlets that have published articles. I just made some changes let me know what you think. Thanks Craig[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial references. Some are straight press releases, others are advertorials. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News that's actually about the company is press releases, routine reports of management changes etc. Daily News and Statesman-Journal pieces are about scribes in general. Doesn't meet GNG. Brianhe (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Craigbark (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Got you, let me work on it a little more, haven't had any hobby time lately. Thanks for the feedback..[reply]

Delete I could not find any indicator of real notability, looks somewhat promotional.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yane Calovski[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deleted and shortly afterward recreated by another WP:SPA w/out any justification. It is still a giant resume listing with no reliable refs; all sources I see mention the artist at best in passing. Vanity/promotional bio. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt. I've been watching this page as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable; this is not a resume-listing service. Quis separabit? 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources about the person. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chingmy Yau[edit]

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

Non-notable inactive actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Iconic Hong Kong film actress. Nominated three times for Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress and once for Hong Kong Film Award for Best Supporting Actress (see Hong Kong Film Awards website). some sourcing is present in the article, GBooks search reveals a variety of sources discussing some of her films, such as the notorious Naked Killer and Jackie Chan's City Hunter.[36][37][38][39]; more sources appear in snippets and in Chinese. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAIR ENOUGH: NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Quis separabit? 17:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Amar[edit]

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

Film director who I'm not sure if he makes it for wiki guidelines, yeah he has some films but none of them seem notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the first page GHits are personal ones, which means there's no coverage otherwise. There's only one news hit in English, and nothing substantial otherwise. It would by necessity be nothing but a clone of the IMDB entry. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 17:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Dabic - Fashion Designer[edit]

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

The person may be notable, but this article is written as an unambiguous advert. The G11 was contested by user Liliana Dabic (who was not the article creator, but is the person the article is about), but Wikipedia is not a place for free advertising/promotion, see WP:PROMO, WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you for your feedback - I have re-written my article. Please note it is not an advertisement or promotional page. Agusiabrg — Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguously promotional. About a quarter of the promotion has been toned down since the nomination, but the article would still need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be encyclopedic. —teb728 t c 18:42, 5 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as pure promotionalism. Quis separabit? 21:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liliana Dabic, User:Agusiabrg and User:Liliana Dabic are the same person, so they shouldn't have removed the speedy deletion tag. I therefore believe this should be speedy deleted as a G11. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 18:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldo Martini[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

== Notability ==

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

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

Comment Nom has probably noticed this, but some keep votes are coming from newly minted accounts. Probably a good idea to check for sock puppets. LaMona (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Express[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Slashme), hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I guess I've become a bit less of a deletionist than I was back then. It's true that it doesn't seem to be covered in depth in any sources that I can find with a cursory Google Books search, so nominally it seems to fail the GNG, but is mentioned in a good few books and reports, so it was a real airline, running flights on more than one route, and there is no doubt about that. I would recommend merging if I could find a suitable merge target. --Slashme (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am seeing a lot of searches about this transport. Even became a courier service. This only needs citations. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please help me identify a source which will make it pass the General notability guideline, namely a reliable source, independent of the subject, where it received significant coverage? --Slashme (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm a bit occupied and all I can do for the meantime is to skim AfD for the Philippines. Using Google, I do find a lot of information and pictures so it does exist [1] and I am from the Philippines and also do know this company exists so using WP:COMMON it is imperative that this article be kept yet maintenance tags must be placed to invite interested editors to improve it by adding citations. Obviously not deletion. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems as if there is a courier company called Mindanao Express, and a Google Images search finds lots of photos of a bus in "Mindanao Express" livery, operated by San Agustin, but from what I can find, the airline of that name has ceased operations. I don't really think that there is a common-sense reason to ignore WP:COMPANY. This guideline is completely applicable, and it basically echoes the GNG: there must be in-depth coverage of the company in reliable, independent secondary sources. Surely an airline of note should leave some footprints more than a brief mention in a few news reports. At the moment, the article doesn't have a single reference. --Slashme (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Upon my short research. It seems Mindanao Express is a company which was once plying the route to southern regions of the Philippines. Manila Standard newspaper captured it 1997. It was a company. but since the larger Philippine Airlines and Cebu Pacific Air has already flights direct to it established route (General Santos, Davao, Zamboanga, Tawi-Tawi, Kota Kinabalu in Sabah, and Indonesia) it then started its downfall trying to live out on its last breath through courier services and buses which were also sold out (or in partnership) to San Agustin. It does exist and it is notable for being the transport/courier service at the end of the 20th century for the Philippines. It is still WP:CORP provided more sources and citations can be given. Manila Standard is one. I still believe is is notable as part of Philippine transportation is concerned and just needs maintenance tags to call editors to improve it. Still works for me in using WP:COMMON as it did exist and notable for once plying those routes. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, searching the internet, I found one source by the Manila Standard published twice (therefore only counting as a single reliable sources) on 26 December 1997, and once again on 28 December 1997. A brief, not significant coverage, mention of the defunct airlines was included in this article, also by the Manila Standard in 2014. Without more significant coverage reliable sources, I cannot support a keep opinion, as the subject appears not to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And improve article using references from the Wall Street Journal, USAid, and PIDS.--RioHondo (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited and appears not notable, happy to reconsider if extra cites can be found. Transasia07 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Not seeing a consensus yet due to the Weak deletes Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources show that it existed, but mere existence is not enough for Wikipedia. YSSYguy (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again, please take a good look at the sources I posted. An article without enough citations now doesn't mean it won't have or that it is not notable anymore. The USAID source claims that it was "the first commuter airline in Mindanao." That in itself already suggests notability. This news source from 1999 claims that it was also the "first airline which provided direct flights between major Mindanao destinations." This article just needs improvement and addition of RS's such as those and 1 2 3. --RioHondo (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a good look at those sources, and all they do is demonstrate the company's existence. You can have fifty citations of that calibre and the result would still be the same - it existed and went about its business for a while. That is not enough. YSSYguy (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually leaning towards keep right now. At least we now have a full-length newspaper article that discusses the airline in depth, saying which aircraft they were using, and we also have sources which explain how they became a bus operator. The fact that they were the first airline on those routes is an aspect of notability as well, so even though the topic might not pass a strict application of the notability guidelines, it passes the most important part, namely verifiability. We know for a fact what the answers are to the main who/what/when/where/why questions. I'd say that if User:RioHondo and User:Philippine Adventurer can update the article with this new information, it's worth keeping. --Slashme (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 18:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Williams[edit]

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

Works in a notable industry, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Seems to be self-promotion. Tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved. Pinging Bidgee who tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient independent references to establish WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that this is relisted again until we do have a consensus or reasonable number of responses? Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer What Boleyn neglects to indicate is that since the notability tag was first placed on the article on 2 September 2009 there have been a substantial number of edits, all of which have been referenced with independent verifiable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dan arndt, there has certainly been some good work done on the article. The length of time it's been tagged is not any indication of whether it is notable or not, but it is a shame when an article which has been waiting a long time for its notability to be properly looked at has the tag left on it and nothing resolved fully due to a lack of participants in an AfD. Boleyn (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Almost all the sources are comics related so not entirely third party. there needs to be more genuine third party coverage like mainstream press, therefore fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a comic book artist most sources are always going to be comic related. In accordance with WP:GNG Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. They are not limited or restricted to the mainstream press. Dan arndt (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: 4th relist - leaning delete but no consensus, there needs to be a discussion about whether the sources in the article hold up Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But reduce to what is available in substantial resources. Of the ones I looked at #6, 9 ad 12 are about Williams and his work, and are lengthy and of substance. Ones like #2-3 (which are about someone else) and #1, 5 (just his name) should be eliminated if a better source is found. LaMona (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have replaced reference #2 to provide clarification as to his involvement in Barossa Studios. Reference #1 provides details of his birth date, whilst reference #5 cites his work on 'The Phantom' comic. Dan arndt (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This comic book artist might be mistaken for another prolific comic artist (e.g., The Jaguar, Uncanny X-Men), David A. Williams, USA, born August 12 (unknown year) ; unless a biography for David A. Williams is also present in Wikipedia. (I had been looking for information on a David Williams, comic artist, almost mistaking David G. Williams for David A. Williams, since I am not familiar with comic books.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springminn (talk •

contribs) 06:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Springminn all you need to do is check David Williams, which provides a disambiguation of all similar named person. At this stage there is no article for David A. Williams (comic artist) but you can create it. Dan arndt (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Dan arndt Thank you. I have added a link to David A. Williams (comic artist) on the David Williams disambiguation page. Somebody more knowledgeable about comic books should probably write the article, though. User:Springminn — Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Furthermore, overall consensus is that the awards the subject has received do not qualify as "well-known and significant industry award"(s) (quoted from WP:PORNBIO). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yurizan Beltran[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail current WP:NACTOR and WP:PORNBIO requirements. Has no major award wins and is not independently notable. Pax 08:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - winner - meets of WP:PORNBIO and also is notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does the subject meet PORNBIO, let alone pass GNG? Pax 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical-man always votes keep in porn-related discussions. In this case the award won is not a well-known award counting for passing PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is always safe to ignore this user's input into porn bio AfDs, as do the closing admins. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Beltran won an award and has multiple nominations for other awards. Has apparently appeared in a mainstream media program. IMO she meets PORNBIO criteria. -- fdewaele, 7 May 2015, 18:47 CET.

Delete. Her RISE Award for "Hottest Butt" fails both parts of the well-known/significant standard under PORNBIO: RISE Awards are no more than minimally notable (if even that) not well-known, and body/body parts awards generally lack significance (see, for example, the Jayden James AFD [40] and DRV [41]. where a similar and higher-visibility award was held not to satisfy PORNBIO). No credible argument the subject passes the GNG, and a single, fleeting talk show spot certainly fails the multiple featured mainstream appearances standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 obscure award does not qualify for wp:pornbio. Subject also fails to meet the general notability guidelines, as there are no reliable sources to be found that cover the subject in-depth. The references in the article at present are to a blurb in a Top 10 list and a pile of AVN, XBIZ, etc...press releases for nominations. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim is the RISE award and the article on that just got deleted as non-notable. I'd say that was a clincher. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic (musician)[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion WP:A7, but the assertion of having performed with notable performers like Jason Derulo at a music venue does give somewhat of an assertion of notability enough to where he may just barely pass speedy criteria. I couldn't find anything in a search to really back any notability up in a search. I found some routine performance listings like this one, but not anything that would really show notability. The sources on the article are also unusable as far as showing notability goes. As far as I can see this guy fails notability criteria fairly solidly. I'd speedy delete him, but there's just enough here to where AfD may be the best outlet for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, I can find no good evidence that this article achieves any of Wikipedia's notability criteria or contains any good references. The article makes numerous claims but has no supporting evidence. I would fully support this articles speedy deletion, please feel free to delete. --Geneticcuckoo (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources under either his stage name or real name. No indication that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page there are notability but not enough. However i am capable of adding the required/ more notability seeing as i have studied this musician for a few years and have seen many publishes. I shall be adding more notability within the next few days. 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.69.36 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 18:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am Fine[edit]

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

Music group with no refs and notability tagged for years-of course it is pretty hard to find anything when the group is named something like "Am Fine" considering the number of results you will get with that name. Wgolf (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appear to meet WP:MUSBIO #5, having released several albums with RS Promotion, a major Thai record label. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 012-Well thanks there-the problem as I said is that the bands name makes it kind of hard to find exact pages. Wgolf (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The major Thai record label wouldn't save the article though and sometimes it'd better to simply the band under the label's article. Multiple searches with News and Books found nothing and searches at Thai newspapers found nothing including one in Thai here (I'm not a Thai speaker so I wouldn't know if those results are relevant given the name "Am Fine"). Ultimately, if it can't be improved in the slighest, better to delete it and maybe (if they're notable) it can be translated and remade later. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments [42] list total 12 albums (some are singles album) for the band. The album picture can be scrolled left/right in the middle of page above song list. Also 61 songs are listed (although 3 are duplicates due to appearing in both singles and full album). The news about the band is easy to find for the lead vocal who has become solo artist for a few years. But news for the band is hard to find because they are quite old and many are no longer online.
- News for the band: [43] (from 2009), [44] (2010) [45] (2008), [46] (2008)
- News for the lead vocals: Thai Rath alone list many news already [47], [48] (2 different Thai spelling for the band) Note that Dailynews search are not as reliable. The news listed by Thairath are actually the ones related to her. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 07:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources. Comment to Lerdsuwa. The album must be on a major label. That isn't supported at your link. The reference from http://news.hunsa.com/ and http://gossipstar.mthai.com/ are good, but too short for significant coverage. http://entertain.tnews.co.th/ and the others are about one of the singers, not the band. Does not support the band's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The big two in Thailand label for the past 30 years are GMM Grammy and RS Public Company Limited. The market share of all the so-call Record_label#Major_labels combined in Thailand is probably never exceed 10% in any year during this period (for recent years, it is like 1%). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my above comments. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1820 Lohmann[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those under 2000 to be discussed and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's a published lightcurve analysis specifically about this object [49] but I don't think it's enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect: the published study lists two prior results, but I'm not sure if those would serve. Praemonitus (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1825 Klare[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those under 2000 to be discussed and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the usual lightcurve studies [50] [51] [52] it's mentioned frequently in connection with the problem of determining asteroid masses, and there was also a published undergraduate study specifically about this object attempting to model its three-dimensional shape [53]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per convincing opinions given abouve. Thanks for taking the time to comment here. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All seem to agree that this is better covered at Wiktionary, where it is already defined. Sandstein 08:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptor (accounting)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in as an acceptor of this suggestion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Netherlands–United States relations. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Antilles–United States relations[edit]

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

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Foreign relations of the Netherlands Antilles are not notable. Therefore, the relations between the Netherlands Antilles and the United States would also not be notable. Basically this article can be summed up by saying that the foreign relations were conducted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Tavix Talk 03:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Netherlands–United States relations. The article says that this is the way that this relationship was actually handled. Nick-D (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't even mention the Netherlands Antilles. I'm not sure how helpful a redirect of that type would be. Tavix Talk 03:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be easily fixable. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Netherlands-United States relations, as Netherland Antilles is a crucial realm of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and as such all of it's foreign affairs are handled by Amsterdam on behalf of the Netherland Antilles; However, as it once managed its own foreign affairs, I think a section should be included under Netherlands-United States relations]]. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Netherlands–United States relations as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thomas Nöla#Albums. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¡Vanity Is a Sin![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/¡Vanity Is a Sin!

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

No sources could be found to verify the album's notability after an extensive search. I strongly feel there is little to be done to improve the article due to the lack of online sources and offline sources relating to the content of the article and so I propose its deletion. GavinMansfield (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thomas Nöla#Albums. (The Doctor (Thomas Nöla et son Orchestre album) should be dealt with similarly.) Pax 09:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist, per WP:NALBUM. Random86 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

‘Ad[edit]

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

May fail to meet WP:N and one source said,

"The great antediluvian king of the Mussulman was Shedd-Ad-Ben-Ad, or Shed-Ad, the son of Ad, or Atlantis."
Possible hoax? please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ʿĀd. The Snowager-is awake 18:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of two related AfDs.. Compare: ʿĀd vs. ‘Ad (the subject here): different articles. Compare Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (this one, classified with AfD category for Biographies): the AfDs are different. --do ncr am 18:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to copy my findings here where they are more relevant: "I'd had a look to see about deleting, but found "Ubar was the pride of a prideful king—Shaddad, son of King Ad, grandson of Noah" in this, which is given in one of the articles. I'm not sure they're hoaxes. The transcript also states "There were other clues in the library's climate-controlled vaults, tantalizing hints in the Koran, references in the Arabian Nights and Greek and Roman histories, and the works of Islamic geographers. In some books, Ubar was mentioned, but had a different name. Or the Ubarites were called "the People of Ad." But nothing gave Ubar's exact location, or proved it was real." These are likely not hoaxes in our sense, but either not notable or things believed to have existed in some theologies". My conclusion: no hoax, but not encyclopedia notable either. Delete. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The king and his city are mentioned in some books from reputable publishers[54][55][56]. There are presumptions that inhabited places are notable, and that kings are notable. There is no consensus as to whether mere mention in the Bible, Koran, etc confers notability but it carries some weight. No need to have articles on both the king and the city, but one should be kept, and since the city is generally known as "the city of 'Ad" or similar, keeping the king makes sense. Also, it's hard to Google, sources are likely to be offline, there's no evidence anyone has checked Arabic or other non-English sources, and Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The king is notable, although the article may need better sources and a rewrite. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If nothing else, Wikipedia should provide comprehensive coverage of peoples! Up with people! If there is doubt whether such a people existed, then say that in the article. It is useful for Wikipedia to cover peoples that are merely hypothesized to have existed by anthropologists, which turn out later to be viewed as within some already-named larger people. This happens for animals, too: e.g. Cape lions of South Africa were considered to be a distinct group, and later argued to be nothing special. --do ncr am 18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of two related AfDs. If ʿĀd is same as ‘Ad (the subject here) then they should be merged. Note: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad are both going one. This should have been one multiple-article AfD. Of course if they really are one people then articles should be merged. But if one is about a people in Saudi Arabia during one time period covered by one set of sources, and other is about people somewhere else at some other time, covered by different sources, then probably not, though hatnote disambiguation is needed. --do ncr am 18:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weightism[edit]

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

This reads as basically 100% editorial. quite literally zero used sources. zero neutrality whatsoever. there isn't a single thing that isn't just conjecture. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 06:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly redirect to Anti-fat bias. Hard to see why this wasn't speedy deleted, it's all OR and there's nothing encyclopaedic about it. Neiltonks (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly unsourced, the one sourced sentence that was added since this AfD was opened would be better at Anti-fat bias. I don't think this would be a good redirect to there, though, both because it appears to be a neologism and because "discrimination or stereotyping based on one's weight" presumably could refer to very thin people as well. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dress. To preserve attribution after the content move, but consensus is that this is not needed as a disambiguation page. Sandstein 08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skirt and dress[edit]

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

It baffles me as to why this article has remained, even as a disambiguation page. It does not actually reduce any sort of confusion for the reader, and rather further confuses them. According to the talk page, the page was originally an article, when the topics of skirt and dress were on this page; the topics were separated into the current articles. A redirect to either page does not work since the title of this page does not weigh to one article or another. Finally, it does not seem to be the correct use of a "disambiguation" page, per WP:D.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 06:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there's anything page-history-wise that needs to be preserved. Very unlikely search or link term, with no incoming article links (besides redirects, none of which have any incoming links at all). ansh 666 06:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not strictly a disambiguation page, but a navigation tool from a phrase, "Skirt and Dress" which multiple editors in 2005-2007 obviously thought was a sensible title for a Wikipedia article. If the article had been moved to a new title there would be a redirect. As it was divided into two articles, a page leading to both seems appropriate - a sort of forked redirect. Possibly needs a redirect from "Dress and skirt" too. PamD 09:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reason: Many things, arbitrarily or not, can be "strung together". This was a mistake years ago. To keep this article, by your arguement, is to open the door for more of these pages and for editors to make silly circuitous pages like this.96.52.0.249 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete If one goes into the article history in search of the editing wisdom of the ancestors, what one finds (if one approaches it with an open mind) is that they were in no way wise. What happened was that someone started skirt, and someone else decided for no good reason to tack dress onto it, so someone moved the whole thing to this name. Searching for the phrase produces nothing but incidental juxtapositions, as one might expect. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I usually refrain from posting "IDONTLIKEIT" comments but.... this is utterly pointless - Anyone wanting the dress or skirt articles would go to one of them...... Seeing no point to this whatsoever. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:XY, which is meant for redirects that can equally go to two separate places but it applies here (IMO). Those redirects get deleted because we don't (and shouldn't) create pages like this. It's unnecessary and pointless. Tavix | Talk 01:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep or strong redirect - this article has been merged into dress (see) and should be keeped or if its deleted dress should be deleted too by copyright reasons. Christian75 (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Delete. Pointless stub which talks about something that, in cricket terms, is a non-subject. Cricket is administered and played separately by England and Wales combined, by Ireland itself (Northern and the Republic combined) and by Scotland itself. In no way is it ever considered "British" or "UK". It becomes even sillier when the Irish position is considered because "Cricket in Ireland" includes the Republic and that is not part of the UK. The article cannot be expanded because there is nothing else to say; it has no sources (because none exist); and it is not notable because it is a non-subject. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename This article should be called "Cricket in the British Isles". Then there will be something to write about and Ireland will not be a problem as it is in the British Isles. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How then would it be expanded and what sources would you find? All that you would do is duplicate content that is correctly covered by articles about cricket in the relevant countries. The article is pointless, has no prospects and adds no value. Cricket is administered and played by England and Wales together; by Northern Ireland and the Republic together; and by Scotland alone. Three entities, not one. There is NO "UK cricket" or "British cricket" or "British Isles cricket". Jack | ^{talk page} 15:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Jack I didn't say there was such a thing as British Isles cricket. I suggested that we have a page called Cricket in the British Isles. There is a distinction. This page would be very useful in listing the countries and how they are associated or how they are distinct. The page could also provide an overview of comparison. It need not suggest that there is a British Isles Cricket team, a concern you have noted. Think of it like being a page called "Cricket in the European Union". There may be no European cricket team, indeed there may not even be any real association between the cricket teams of various countries but such a page is still useful. It could communicate statistics and provide an overview of the sport in Europe. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page doesn't do any harm serving as a disambiguation, and if someone goes looking for 'Cricket in the UK' thinking it has centralised administration, it's a simple signpost to correct them. I certainly wouldn't say it requires deletion. The question of how to treat Ireland can be left to those better versed in the subject than I, but I'd suggest an explanation in words would be preferable to renaming to the less obvious "Cricket in the British Isles" title just to get around that issue. Aspirex (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Keep as a disambig page (per Aspirex). --RaviC (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful statement of fact and guide to 4 relevant articles. Might not be a dab page, but is an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 08:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not envision a significantly higher-than-zero number of users ever entering the exact phrase "Cricket in the United Kingdom" into the search box. Pax 09:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at present I agree that it's a useful signpost page but also a place for any notable information about the popular culture surrounding cricket in the UK or any history of how the three entities came to be (did any ever merge or split? Did wales ever have its own division?). jwanders^Talk 18:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant_Barrett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Grant Barrett

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

The only credible sources of NYT has only one mention of his name and not an article. Fails to meet WP:BLP. Moreover being a auto-bio per WP:WWA it has relation with Wp:COI as well. Doublefrog (talk) 05:57, 5 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although Nom asserts that "the only credible source" now on the page is the NYTimes, this is grossly insulting to the U-T San Diego, an old and respected daily that interviewed Barrett [57], not to mention dissing the credibility of the venerable American Dialect Society, of which lexicographical organization the page tells us that he is an officer. About that NYTimes article? It describes him as one of 5 youngish people who are "part of the next wave of top lexicographers who have already or may soon take over guardianship of the nation's language" as chiefs of America's top 5 dictionaries.[58] Not too shabby. Oh, and, Barrett is host of a blue-linked show on NPR called A Way with Words. I know this because it's right on the page. In blue. The question I'm really raising here is, have we decided that the appropriate response to meeting an article on a topic where notability is obvious - indicated by links already on the page - the proper response is to take it to AFD instead of, say, tagging it for in-line sourcing? End of rant. Seriously, folks, can we keep AFD for articles about marginal subjects?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, subject is clearly notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Passes WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close requested. Nom has been blocked indef as part of a sockpuppet investigation. All editors in good standing !voted keep. Anyone care to close this? Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysia-Theodora_Avgerinopoulou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou

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

The article is an auto-biography per WP:WWA and moreover it was tagged as self-promoting and failing WP:BLP a long back ago. Fails WP:BLP may certainly a case of WP:COI as well. Doublefrog (talk) 05:39, 5 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NPOLITICAN and WP:GNG as a member of Greek Parliament. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable as a member of the Greek Parliament. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep member of national legislature, WP:POLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is part of a bizarre deletion spree being conducted by purported newbie User:Doublefrog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. FYI, her Greek Wikipedia article is at el:Διονυσία - Θεοδώρα Αυγερινοπούλου. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Appel[edit]

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

The article is an auto-biography per WP:WWA. Lacks significant coverage. Moreover it's a case of WP:COI and fails to meet WP:BLP. Doublefrog (talk) 05:34, 5 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand that the nom is a newbie, so I can understand him not knowing how AfD works. He may want to hold back on future nominations until he has further experience participating in and following AfDs. The subject clearly meets GNG. See, e.g., these articles, and these, and coverage in books here (let alone the fact that he has written reviewed books). AfD is not for cleanup. Plus -- there is something weird about this nomination. It is one of the first edits nom ever made, ever. Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may explain Nom's otherwise inexplicable AFD for Grant Barrett.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable author of several books about the Yankees and MLB. Clearly satisfies both the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and apparently satisfies the specific notability for authors (criteria no. 3) per WP:AUTHOR, with multiple published reviews of his books. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Clearly notable. Alex (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, Alex. Better to use this time to rewrite and properly source this BLP article, which reads like a COI/copyvio cut-and-paste. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does have some serious conflict of interest problems however. Spanneraol (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean because it reads like an unsourced copyright violation of cut-and-paste text from the author, publisher or agent's website? I noticed that, too. Since this is obviously going to be kept, I hope someone will start rewriting it and sourcing/footnoting it now, without waiting for the AfD discussion to close. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, even if the article does need a spring cleaning. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also keep tags, it needs a major revision, but clearly passes GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Needs rewriting, but definitely not deleting. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guruji.com[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines and also fails WP:CORP Doublefrog (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doublefrog has been blocked indef as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 6 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Early Internet company is not grounds for notability Shii (tock) 22:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in the least. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 22:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry_Alanguilan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gerry Alanguilan

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

The subject is famous only for one event and that too not covered by significant sources and certainly fails to meet WP:BLP and WP:BIO. The article is also an auto biography per WP:WWA Doublefrog (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doublefrog has been blocked indef as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 6 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG, with multiple awards and award nominations, and plenty of coverage in reliable sources, see e.g. [59]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't this be closed, as the nom is not in good standing, and nobody else has !voted delete? Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is notable per WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, & WP:GNG, as stated by Arxiloxos.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Notable per WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, & WP:GNG. The nom is indef blocked. All editors in good standing have !voted keep. Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The author is notable enough to warrant his own box in Google's search engine and there are literally hundreds of sources that mention Gerry Alanguilan, many of which are reputable. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Quake[edit]

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

These are all defunct ABA basketball teams. Over the last few months, they were redirected to List of former American Basketball Association teams. Last week, Natg 19 (talk · contribs) nominated them for deletion at RFD. See: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 25#Colorado Springs Crusaders. It was decided there that AFD would be a better place to decide whether they are notable or not. I believe all of these teams to fail WP:ORG, rendering them non-notable. Tavix | Talk 05:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 05:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 05:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if they fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG, they should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all All the teams pretty much either played a few games or no games in an amazingly unstable basketball league (and at least with the Quake, had a pretty tone-deaf team name, and the article says it all that it was a top-20 team with only a 4-2 record). Delete all, but after this redirect Alaska Quake to 1964 Alaska earthquake as a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 16:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem there is enough media coverage to justify this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. See:

There are more than enough reputable sources covering the Alaska Quake to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia.Ormr2014 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUTINE. Tavix | Talk 23:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those pieces are rip-and-read PR straight from the team; only the fifth story covering a rivalry actually seems neutral (but going by story 5, is under the same ownership). The first one isn't AD-N at all, but a generic basketball stats site which is confusing to understand. Nate • (chatter) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These teams fail GNG, ORG, and NBASKETBALL. None of the modern day ABA teams are considered a top professional league. The sources listed above in support of keeping the articles are ROUTINE coverage. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Cottonwood Heights, Utah. – czar 18:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvyn Cullimore[edit]

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

Non-notable person and seems to be best known as the mayor of Cottonwood Heights, Utah. A search at News finds several results but mostly as the mayor and a search adding Dynatronics found fewer results (mostly press releases, with one Forbes and the others minor mentions through local newspapers). Books found nothing useful so in a way, the article is promotional since a lot of that can't be confirmed by significant and in-depth coverage. As an alternative, this could be redirected to Cottonwood Heights's article but there's not much there to mention him aside from the mayor. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cottonwood Heights, Utah. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I understand that there is no consensus for this, but I think the history sections of towns and cities should include a list of mayors. - Location (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a consensus issue — towns and cities quite frequently do have lists of the mayors, either in the history or politics sections of the main article or spun off as a separate list, if we can find the proper reliable sourcing to support one. Adequate sourcing tends to be much harder to locate for smaller towns, though. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The city in question (pop. 33K) is not large enough to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on its mayors, and the article is not even close to citing enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG instead. While he might potentially get over our inclusion rules for businesspeople for the CEO role, that still depends on sourcing rather than mere assertion — being a CEO is not a notability freebie that entitles a person to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article just because the letters "CEO" are involved (and that's especially true when the company that they're CEO of doesn't even have an article under WP:CORP). Delete or redirect to Cottonwood Heights. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bheema Nagari Amman Temple[edit]

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

This article is of particular concern because there aren't any significant, reliable or in-depth sources to support it. With the little information the article gives, I searched at News, Books and browser and found nothing good. Unfortunately, I believe this article was created as a personal page as shown here. As far as I'm concerned, this article is best being deleted as no one has cared to improve it and more importantly it seems it can't. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep~~ - I am unable to find any sources at all. Poorly written, has no proof over the claims made and there is no mention of the temple anywhere on the net (at least I couldn't find any). Nothing is there to suggest it is notable. — Yash! ^(Y) 22:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you meant to say delete. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm — Yash! ^(Y) 05:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dijon Talton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable actor. He only had 3 lines on Glee. Previous AFD resulted in delete, and he has not done anything particularly notable since then. JDDJS (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's starring in a new show HBO picked up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big red flags are that the majority of the article is linked to his so called "official" site, and the overly promotional tone. Played a minor role of Glee. The above is only a pick up of a pilot in development which may/ may not become a notable series so TOOSOON would apply. Does not meet NACTOR as he has not played significant roles. Does not meet GNG as I can't find significant substantial coverage of him in independent sources. Cowlibob (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now; fails WP:NACTOR Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RevLeft[edit]

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

Nonnotable political forum. No reliable secondary sources exist. Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - News found nothing, Books found one passing mention and a browser search found nothing good and websites I'm not familiar with. Not notable website. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:WEB - HighBeam and Google News found zero results, books most likely have no mention. Esquivalience ^t 02:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be just another internet forum with little influence. If the forum had more notability or influence, I'd say yes, but as it seems to be a circle-jerk of few tens of users, I can hardly see how this warrants inclusion. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. An overview regarding this close:

A redirect !vote qualifies redirection stating "Without charting or being reviewed / discussed by reliable sources...(et al.), but this notion has been countered in the discussion with the provision of reliable sources that do discuss the song.
A redirect !vote qualifies redirection stating that "the song is not covered in indepedent reviews", but this has been disproven per sources provided in the discussion (e.g. this Pitchfork review).
A redirect !vote, (as well as other comments in the discussion with this sentiment), qualifies redirection by stating in regard to the sources, “the content from them should be included in the article to demonstrate notability”. This is not a guideline- or policy-based rationale for redirection. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles, it's based upon the availability of sources. Sources do not need to be present in articles for notability to be demonstrated. Furthermore, users contributing to AfD discussions are not obligated to add sources to articles.
Some for redirection state that the sources provided won't allow for expansion of the article, but this notion has been challenged in the discussion.

It's clear that the article won't be deleted per this discussion, and the redirect arguments have been substantially countered in the discussion, mostly by the provision of sources about the song. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All That (song)[edit]

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

"All That" does not appear to be notable. It didn't chart, the article does not that much information, and there is only 6 sources. Per WP:NSONG. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carly Rae Jepsen discography for now; unlikely to grow beyond a stub at the moment Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect : Agree with both of you. The song has not attained notability yet and so fails WP:NSONG and WP:NOTE. Without charting or being reviewed / discussed by reliable sources, the article doesn't contribute anything that couldn't be summed up by a sentence or two on either the Carly Rae Jepsen article or her discograpy such as "The album's second single, "All That", was released to iTunes on April 5, 2015." The discography is a good place to redirect for now; if/when an article for E·MO·TION is established, the redirect could be pointed to the album article instead. Songsteel (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are tons of reviews and articles of the song available online. Just because they aren't on the article doesn't mean they don't exist. Please read WP:DELETE. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Status, provide those "tons of reviews and articles" and possibly add them to the article, allowing for an expansion. Cause the way it is now, there is no way this should stay. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's several references I found just skimming the surface of this search engine called Google (maybe you should bookmark it for later usage) because some people can't be bothered to actually do some research before nominating an article for deletion. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] — Status (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are doing the article any good if they're not being used. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those sources are already in the article, and a lot discuss the SNL performance, which is already there. Just cause it has some media coverage, and there can be a lot of sources (for the same subject, i.e., the SNL performance), doesn't mean it will be enough to be an article. If you can possibly expand the article, then maybe. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, honey... you nominated this article for deletion claiming it's not notable, and I provided multiple sources that prove its notability. They don't have to be in the article. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a lot of coverage, doesn't mean it is notable since a lot of those sources provide the same information. And it appears it won't grow all that much farther. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article does state she filmed a music video for the song (it's unsourced, but I'm sure a music video is on its way, considering it's the second single from her upcoming album). Seems to me that a music video release would provide additional coverage for the song, no? Regardless, the coverage it has already received is enough to establish basic notability. Period. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article still wouldn't be enough, hasn't charted anywhere, and if it can't have more than 20 sources, not really notable. looking at Spotify, it only has a little more than 1 million streams compared to I Really Like You's 50 million+. Even if a music video were to be added, this 5,200 byte length article wouldn't really be much different. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize that how popular a song is on Spotify has to do with its notability; I was under the impression that had to do with the coverage it received from reliable sources. You learn something new every day! The fact that the song hasn't charted (which I don't know for a fact, as I haven't searched for it) does not make a difference. This deletionist attitude has to go. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a way to show what is popular and what is not. It may have a lot of coverage, but again, a lot of the sources talk about the same thing, if the article can't get much longer (as it appears it can't and won't) there is no reason to keep this. "This deletionist attitude needs to go", discuss content, not editors. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided multiple additional sources that could be used to expand the article, and pointed out the fact that a music video will mostly likely be released shortly, and you still don't believe that the article can be expanded further. I am discussing content, and you are discussing Spotify and what is popular on the charts or not. I have nothing further to add, as I have provided more than enough information to warrant the article to be kept. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article could be expanded, then why don't you expand it then just leaving sources here? Sources are no good unless there if info to add with it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want to. I am involved in a deletion discussion, which is where you either prove or disprove an article's notability. Again, what the article has and what information is out there are two different things. An article does not need to have every bit of information available in the world to exist. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I can't see even with the sources you provided, how the article could be expanded, someone should do it. The sources that you provided won't expand the article any, a lot are on the same subject, again. And the SNL performance is already in the article. --- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carly Rae Jepsen discography as the song is not covered in indepedent reviews., All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Status. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, your comment above goes against WP:PERNOM. It adds no value to the discussion, please be a little more specific. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with Winkelvi's keep !vote, PERNOM states: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." It is common for editors to leave "per X" comments when another editor has said all that they wish to say for brevity's sake. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carly Rae Jepsen discography for now. @Status: You should link to such sources, not simply say "There are tons of them", and the content from them should be included in the article to demonstrate notability. Until that is done, regardless of how much information exists, the reader is not serviced by a few short paragraphs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to WP:GNG, the minimum amount of sources of significant coverage needed is 2, not more than 6. The reviews of the song from Billboard, Pitchfork and Vox, plus the other sources brought up in here, are more than enough (and I also found another one from Fact Magazine, after doing a quick Google search). Also, as mentioned, charting is not the main indicator for a song to be notable. It just implies notability of a song, just as WP:NSONGS clearly states. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ethnic organizations of Nigeria[edit]

The result was No Consensus (WP:NPASR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicology (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well the Title of the article seems not to be in sync of what is written in the article. Still giving a search on "Eket Front" doesn't give me anything worthy. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^[talk] 12:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Merila[edit]

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass GNG. Merila does not appear to do so and his work as a scout and a minor league player also doesn't make him notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's more and I'll flesh it out later, but he played for Team USA in the 1993 Intercontinental Cup, which in my view satisfies WP:BASE/N. "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they...have participated in a major international competition."[73] The Intercontinental Cup isn't a no-name tournament, it is run by the International Baseball Federation every two or four years since 1973. He was a First-Team All-American while with the Gophers of Minnesota[74]. It looks like he has a hybrid case. All his accomplishments combined make a pretty notable guy. Like I said, though, I'll try to flesh this out more later. Here are just a few links I found on the first few pages of a Google search: [75], [76], [77] Alex (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, not everyone is a hybrid case. The Intercontinental Cup is not listed at BASE/N among the examples of a major international competition and being an All-American also isn't a BASE/N criteria. As Bbny-wiki-editor said elsewhere, "Being non-notable in two or three different areas doesn't somehow combine to make a person notable." Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory glance through google shows that there are sources out there. Several feature articles covered his battle with brain cancer and there is coverage of his winning the Big 10 Conference Player of the Year honors, which is a fairly significant college accomplishment as well as the aforementioned all-american honors. I'm unsure as to if the intercontinental Cup is a significant international tournament (Alex has the wrong Cup linked above) but the other issues I think push him over the top. Spanneraol (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, it takes more than a couple local stories to pass GNG. Every year, hundreds of athletes are "conference player of the year" in various sports, and hundreds of people are profiled in local papers. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for baseball players or college athletes. Having brain cancer is tragic, but not grounds for notability. The only real coverage is because he has the cancer, but that seems like WP:ONEEVENT and he's hardly unique in having cancer--he just has a higher visibility job than most. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided for him constitute either tribute-type coverage due to his illness, or routine coverage. The former is a step up from the typical coverage seen at AfD, but the fact that the articles are then less about him and more about what others are doing keeps me from immediately saying keep on him. I'll say neutral, weak delete if it has to be penciled in only because he could have easily had feature pieces on him, and doesn't quite do so. Wizardman 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question. As a college All-American, doesn't he satisfy the requirements of WP:NCOLLATH for having "won a national award"? In college football, that certainly would be enough. I'm not as familiar with the news coverage received by All-Americans in baseball. Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being a baseball All-American would meet the requirements. Either way, he still fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple articles about him in multiple contexts. And not just about "what others are doing," for example [78]. Rlendog (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source found by Rlendog tipped the balance for me. I've added it and a couple others to the article. Merila was a truly elite player at the collegiate level. He not only was an All-American (probably sufficient in and of itself under WP:NCOLLATH) and the Big Ten Conference Baseball Player of the Year, but he set multiple Minnesota Golden Gophers baseball batting records, including single-season batting average (.452), career batting average (.392), and career walks (187). He was likely on his way to an MLB career, but he was stricken with a brain tumor at the end of his senior year. Even so, his truly elite college career is enough. There is abundant significant coverage, including feature stories in mainstream media publications, including the San Diego Union-Tribune, and in an authoritative book about the history of Minnesota Golden Gophers sports. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The baseball AfDs are lowering the "significant coverage" bar lower and lower by the week. All of the sources listed above, taken together, still don't come close to satisfying GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Oliver[edit]

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

Non-notable cast member of the Bad Girls Club with no to questionable sources. jona ^(talk) 20:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also non-notable cast members of the Bad Girls Club with little to questionable sources and are only known for being a cast member fails WP:1E:

Delete unless there are WP:RSes (other than the network that produces/distributes the show) that discuss biographical details of their lives (apart from the shows).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Enough is enough; I've said it before many times that the Bad Girls series of articles is an unsalvageable PR-ridden mess, and these people have no notability outside of the halls of Oxygen's offices. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by MaxSem. –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egoteísmo[edit]

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

Most likely personal essay in Spanish, per Google Translate, it appears to be an essay on "ego", "nuclear devices", and Christianity, and it also appears WP:SOAPBOXy. If someone fluent in Spanish can verify that this is a personal essay (or the contrary), please do so. Esquivalience ^t 01:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note that there is already a CSD G2 on it, but I doubt it is a test page.~~ Esquivalience ^t 01:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a religious/philosophical discussion, probably of a personal nature. Statements like "¡Edifícate como templo a tu Propia Divinidad! Porque ¡Todos somos dioses de nosotros mismos!" (which means roughly "Build yourself as a temple to your own divinity! Because we are all gods ourselves!") Clearly indicate the intent of this article is to promote a religious ideology and nothing more. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's promoting a philosophy or approach to life. I just tagged it for WP:CSD G11. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And an instant later, it's gone! —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RCA TruFlat[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan with no indication of being notable. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been mentioned in some sales and promotional websites. I will look again if it can be redirected. VandVictory (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Opabinia regalis as a blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 11:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Wheelbarrow Day[edit]

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

Probable hoax, search comes up with zero results. Even if it were to exist, the "holiday" is not notable. Esquivalience ^t 01:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it was real, and especially if President Obama had mentioned it as the article implies, it would certainly have gotten some press coverage. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone refutes @Kitfoxxe Doublefrog (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Almost certainly a hoax, with zero Google search results except for this piece. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalisco State Highway 225[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced original research article on a 10 kilometer stretch of road from a pueblito in Jalisco, Mexico. PROD was removed due to keep result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jalisco_State_Highway_225 based on changed positions because sources had been found. Those sources no longer exist leaving this as an unsourced orphan. I've found no sources outside of Wikipedia that confirm this road is actually referred to as a Jalisco estatal, never mind whether it is notable. Google maps calls it Avenida Higinio Ruvalcaba. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3gg5amp1e: please do not plagiarize my text. If you want to create an AFD, do it in your own words. Vrac (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per previous discussion. Sources were found at the previous AFD and I do not get why the articles was "stubifyed" when the article can be rewritten using the sources that were found. Dough4872 01:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Those sources no longer exist". How is that even possible? The sources found by NE2 still appear to exist to me. Even if they hyperlinks no longer worked that doesn't mean they don't and have never existed. --Oakshade (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the content restored to the article can be verified. The previous AfD found sources that can be used to verify the information in the article. State highways are typically kept. The previous and current AfD nomination statements attempt to say that a 10-kilometer section of roadway is not a significant piece of infrastructure, yet we've never had a minimum-length requirement for inclusion. There are articles on shorter highways in the United States, even ones in rural areas, so I fail to find that line of reasoning to be convincing. Imzadi 1979 → 08:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ekber Çiçek[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 12:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was important in the development of modern Turkish protest music. E.g. http://www.turkishclass.com/columns/thehandsom/2013/06/29/protest-music-after-the-coup-songs-that-changed-our-lives Albums are reviewed by known sources. http://www.worldlibrary.org/article/WHEBN0005508985/Ali%20Ekber%20Çiçek (content from World Heritage Encylopedia). Much discussion of his work in academic discussions of Turkish folk music. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/834293?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106157672751 http://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/1475 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23758171?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106157672751 https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TIfweHsRWu0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22ALI+EKBER+ÇIÇEK%22+folk+music&ots=JcfE27rYal&sig=UxchvzXVtQ7eFPhgIzPRKQ_OWWU#v=onepage&q&f=false— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Ross-c (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a): this link consists of a mention of his name with almost a dozen other musicians ("On the other hand Âşık İhsani, Mahzuni Şerif, Nesimi Çimen, Davut Sulari, Muhlis Akarsu, Ali Ekber Çiçek, Sümeyra Çakır, Neşet Ertaş, Arif Sağ, Musa Eroğlu and Yavuz Top planted the seeds of ´modern protest music´ by blending the traditional motives in Western forms.")

b): this link consists of a brief profile, with nothing indicating sufficient notability for an encyclopaedia article

c): this JSTOR link is paywalled

d): this link does not even mention Ali Ekber Çiçek

e) : this JSTOR link is paywalled

f) : this link to google.books.com shows a list of references to Ali Ekber Çiçek, some in English, most in Turkish, could provide a colorable claim to notability albeit not in the article as it currently exists Quis separabit? 23:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per wikipedia guidelines, sources do not have to be available online WP:GNG, let alone not behind paywalls. Hence, you can't just dismiss my references like that. BTW: Google summaries of those articles mention Ali, which is why I chose them. Also, the article that you say does not mention Ali does, on the page numbered 1576. The article that you say is a brief profile with nothing indicating sufficient notability mentions ""What did I do!" The song is often considered the pinnacle of symphonic Turkish folk music." This is indicating that the song is notable. If Ali has had a song on any national music chart, then that makes him notable WP:MUSBIO. Given his musical history as per my references, this is incredibly likely, though Turkish chart history is not available online. The sum total of the references not only show multiple mentions of Çiçek in reliable media, but also gives him a notable role in the development of Turkish protest music post coup. Hence, I note your points, but feel that my references do establish notability and therefore that the article should not be deleted. Ross-c (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced by the above sources (and hopefully thewy will be added to the article) that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This JSTOR article, while not thorough, devotes about a page in total to Çiçek (also spelled Çiçik- other variants may exist and yield more sources), calling Çiçek a master virtuoso of the Bağlama and "Of these [other virtuosos], Cicek was one of the first to engage in compositional activity while experimenting with new approaches to the refashioning of indigenous repertory" thus it is very likely other sources exist in folk music encyclopedias, scholarly or popular books. By no means do sources need to be online, free, or even English. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for what its worth, Ethnomusicological Encounters with Music and Musicians devotes several pages (at least) to Çiçek. If you want to read page 197, buy the book :) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, there is a confusion indeed between two scupltors--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Prinzi[edit]

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

Contested PROD, non notable artist who fails WP:BIO. All references I could find, either were not independent, or did not provide significant coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Several of his sculptures have been purchased by a government and put on public display, in parks. Ross-c (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: There are two people w. same name: this one & de:Giuseppe Prinzi, a sculptor of XIX century. Perhaps there is a confusion between the first and the second one. --Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Prinzi.link this http://www.archivioceramica.com/CERAMISTI/P/Prinzi%20Giuseppe.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.164.150 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established (and subject of a cospicuous crosswiki-SPA promotional activity)--Shivanarayana (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, some public displays do not meet WP:ARTIST. "Significant" work should show in at least some notable news coverage and attention from critics, or a more-widespread activity in well-known exhibitions. I also agree with Shivanarayana's concerns about the article creation (WP:SOCK). GermanJoe (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]