Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DELT)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Purge server cache

Clennon Cavern[edit]

Clennon Cavern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Clennon Cavern" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

It is certainly possible this exists but I can find absolutely zero evidence that it does. If it exists, it's non-notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Visual Collaborative[edit]

Visual Collaborative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Visual Collaborative" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Notability template was removed and unsourced details added back, without any attempt to improve this article. I have tried to find online news sources myself, about any of this creative organization's activities, but have been unable to do so (I wouldn't call any of the current sources 'reliable', simply blogs or art/fashion websites). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Weak Delete Support arguments by nominator, more notable than a lot of other stuff I end up deleting, but the references only anecdotally mention the subject of the article with the primary focus being on the artists or the art. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas J. Devine[edit]

Thomas J. Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Thomas J. Devine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Friend Of A Bush and CIA man, and apparently that's about it. The article is mostly constructed from primary sources, and I couldn't find anything else that didn't say "CIA/friend of GHWB/Zapata" and little else. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Windward Reports[edit]

Windward Reports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Windward Reports" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

From talk page: The "article" is unsourced marketing for the company, and the first entry on the talk page is an officer of the company admitting it was created by their staff. This isn't encyclopedic content. It's a press release. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • comment I am fixing an incomplete nomination for User:halleyscomet; I have no opinion to offer at this time. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Summer Son[edit]

The Summer Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Summer Son" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NBOOK. Being a 'Finalist' for a Utah Book Award is not notable. The review in the Billings Gazette was written when the author, Craig Lancaster, was an editor there and the New West rewiew seems to be from the publisher New West Books so neither are independent.

Delete/Redirect to authors page as with his other non-notable books Edward Adrift and The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter. JbhTalk 15:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Zaid Ali[edit]

Zaid Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Zaid Ali" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The page is promotional for internet personality and though it has some notability, does not feel worth for an article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep This person is notable enough as he is not just a internet personality but a public figure. He recently toured U.K for a comedy show. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: In order to claim being a public figure, reliable sources should be provided. All sources in the article as well as found in google are talking about Internet Mem, which is clearly not enough for having an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The sources I provided are acclaimed news agencies not an individual running website. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: The sources you provided all talk about youtube sensation. Wikipedia:Notability_(people) talks about having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. No such reference were provided.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let it be decided by other reviewrs too and let see what the discussion comes to :) Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

CS Stanley[edit]

CS Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "CS Stanley" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This artist certainly fails WP:ARTIST. Only 1 reference to a minor local paper. P 1 9 9   15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: While taking a point made in prior Notability discussion on the Talk page about street art tending to slip by conventional media coverage, the given reference is effectively local coverage and multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not identifying anything better which could meet the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Greg Reyna[edit]

Greg Reyna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Greg Reyna" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The article was nominated for speedy deletion as A7 (no indication of notability). I do not disagree, but since it survived all the way from 2008, it is safer to bring it to the discussion here. Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - While the information in the article would indicate that the subject has some sort of notability, it's a biography of a living person without any reliable sources to verify any of the claims. Google news search only brought up a dog handler. Pishcal 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Garrett Sutton[edit]

Garrett Sutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Garrett Sutton" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article's subject fails notability. References are either dead links, are not independent of the subject, or connect to web sites where the author has paid to have his or her work reviewed and then have the review published. There does not appear to be sufficient independent coverage of this person to justify an article— such media coverage as there is appears to be of his work, not him, and most of it looks like it is self-generated. KDS4444Talk 06:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Jump to: navigation, search


While it is true that Kirkus and Pacific Reviews require payment to review books, reviewers have the right to write negative reviews. Authors can ask that negative reviews not be published, but their fee is not returned. In that way, they are taking an acceptable risk to have their work reviewed and Kirkus and Pacific remain notable sources. Wikipedia also maintains articles for other Rich Dad author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Lechter) who have similar references. However, the Garrett article will be properly edited snd remove sections that point to dead links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(I think that whether or not the author risks having a bad review, this is still not evidence of notability, only of an attempt to purchase it— a bad review would also be evidence of notability if it came from a truly independent source, which it appears these are not.) KDS4444Talk 15:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Kirkus and Pacific had full authority to give the book a negative review. These organizations are not paid to prepare positive reviews, only to write them. I also feel its relevant to note that Wikipedia allowed Amazon user reviews as credible references for Sharon Lechter, along with several personal websites. In the meantime, sections in Garrett's page that were linked to non-working links(bestseller list) were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.232.145 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You have missed my point. My point is that any review which is the result of the author having paid for it is not evidence of that author's notability, only of the depth of his pocketbook, and notability is not something one can purchase. It does not matter whether the review is positive or negative, it matters only that it is not independent of the subject. (That Amazon user reviews may have been treated as credible references in other articles is not the focus of this deletion debate.) KDS4444Talk 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If the content of the two reviews is objective, and I have no opinion on whether it is, excluding it from the encyclopedia doesn't seem to me to sit well with our object of being "the sum total of human knowledge". James500 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
James500, what if they are objective but not independent? I am not questioning the objectivity of the reviews, I am questioning their independence. The author paid to have the reviews written— that to me means they lack independence of the author. (BTW, "sum total of human knowledge" and "an indiscriminate collection of information" sound a lot alike, don't they? I am just noticing this.)
Consider this scenario: I, KDS4444, decide I want Wikipedia to have an article on me. I am not notable (and really, I am not, trust me here), but I decide to write a book about, oh, say, how great my grandmother was (and she was a great lady, but probably not a notable one by Wikipedia's standards). I show it around, but no one wants to review the work of an unpublished author (okay, I actually have published a couple of things, but let's ignore those). So then I realize, "Hey, I can PAY some organization and THEY will HAVE to write a review of my work!" I cut them a check, and a month or so later my book gets reviewed— let's say it gets terrible reviews: "Who wants to read 800 pages about Midwestern nurse with four kids and a dog?" etc. And let's say I do the same thing elsewhere, paying other organizations to write reviews, all of them awful. Fine. Then I can come to Wikipedia and write up my article: "The works of KDS4444 received negative critical responses from several sources", and I can list my sources as these places I paid to write the reviews. Does this then mean I am notable? God, I hope not! Because I am not notable, and I know it. And neither is my dearly departed grandmother (could I use those reviews as evidence of her notability? Please say, "No"). Notability should come from sources independent of their subjects. When the New York Times Book Review looks at your work and reviews it, they aren't getting paid by you to do it. And even if they say your work sucks, that might still make you notable for having been reviewed by them! I am beating a dead horse here, but do you see my point? KDS4444Talk 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Garrett's history as a writer did not come out of the blue, nor was it an independent project, as your hypothetical example seems to suggest. Garrett wrote his books under the Rich Dad brand, of which he is also an adviser. He also co-wrote books with Sharon Lechter, another noted member of the Rich Dad organization. This debate seems to center solely on the reviews he received and not the other examples of notability present in the article. I also think it is important to note that Wikipedia has accepted Kirkus Reviews for numerous authors. While I understand that other articles do not necessarily play into this debate, how can Wikipedia maintain its reputation if it accepts something at one moment and dismisses it the next? Past examples need to always be taken into account. A search for Kirkus Reviews on Wikipedia shows how many authors and books use their reviews as notable references (and sometimes as the only references). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is created by multiple people, and the existence of a reference to a website on another article does not justify that reference being used in another article. Could you please link to some pages where the website is used as a reference? Pishcal 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

North America, I would like to request the closure of this deletion notice. The second relisting was posted over a week ago with no additional debate. The one issue regarding Kirkus Reviews has been addressed by establishing that Wikipedia has accepted reviews from this source in the past. None of the other references, nor his direct connection with other Wiki articles, have been under dispute. Additionally, the article has been updated with new references, namely:

--An award nomination for IndieFab's Book of the year

--A review from Publisher's Weekly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, WIkipedia guidelines say that articles should not be relisted more than twice. If an article is relisted more than twice, guidelines recommend a short explanation on the reason why. Can you please share why you feel a third relisting is necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodenships513 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for asking. I relisted it in the hope that other users will pitch in - which won't happen if you badger everyone who posts to this page. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sylvester Rivers[edit]

Sylvester Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sylvester Rivers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article which only contains primary or non reliable sources, preliminary searches bring up no sources. Therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not to mention the articles looks to be a poorly cut and pasted of a previous version perhap deleted from before. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can find a few mentions on Google books but nothing significant enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Some of the included "refereces" in the article don't even mention the artist. There is not enough in depth independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been edited to satisfy reliable sources and therefore satisfy WP:NMUSIC. I am the subject of the article and new to Wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Riversco (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You have not read reliable sources as almost all sources in the article are not reliable as per Wikipedia standards. All the references in the article are either social media type pages or simple listing pages. One of the references only leads to a search engine. We generally require that the media or scholars have written about the subject before we consider it notable.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me as I am a newcomer. Sylvester Rivers is mentioned several times in existing Wikipedia articles and several Sylvester Rivers works have their own separate Wikipedia articles. Knowing that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for itself, I referenced original sources that were already accepted by Wikipedia, thinking that was safe. The main source used for both credits and chart positions was allmusic.com, which is one of the most commonly used and authoritative sources for articles on people in the recording industry and a recognized source by the U.S. Library of Congress. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the American organization that certifies Gold and Platinum sales and is therefore the most reliable authority on the subject. The RIAA link referenced was used to verify claims of Gold or Platinum status and should have linked directly to the song in question, not the search main page. This can be corrected. Billboard.com, which was referenced, is considered the recording industry bible in charting and the New York Times was referenced, as well. Discogs.com is considered an industry authority and the largest online database of electronic music releases, and of releases on vinyl media. None of the references were to social media. I read reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (music) and the article seems to conform, e.g., there are many Gold records that can be verified, but I may have missed something. I am the subject of the article and new to Wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Riversco (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
all of those links you have supplied only serve to prove that you have some credits, nothing you have linked talks about YOU which what we need to have an article meet inclusion criteria. We need published media coverage on you as a person, not just a list of your works. The New York Times listing is just that a listing it does nothing towards the WP:GNG threshold.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Mcmatter, for your help. In response to your comments, I added published book references to the article. Also, Sylvester Rivers is the composer and co-writer of the title song of the Michael Henderson album, “In the Night Time,” certified Gold by the RIAA and in the top 10 in two of the Billboard Charts plus in the top 40 in two other Billboard Charts. This should conform to the WP:NMUSIC notable composition guidelines for composers and lyricists. Again, thanks for bearing with me, the new fellow. Riversco (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm surprised that no one has mentioned conflict of interest since the subject of the article is the one editing it, and that user only came onto WP on April 26, presumably in response to the AfD. User also has solicited help [1], which in itself isn't necessarily bad but does increase the conflict of interest appearance. LaMona (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply Conflict of interest is of no concern in this discussion, which should center on WP:Notability. I applaud the editors who did not bring up this matter but who attempted to instruct this new editor. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: can we have a more detailed analysis of the purported reliable sourced added after the AFD please? Spartaz Humbug! 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Hopper[edit]

Dragon Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dragon Hopper" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Another editor redirected this article to the console article, which is pretty much a deletion, so we might as well have the actual discussion. I'm not sure I disagree (I'm impartial really), since this was an unreleased game with only one source. The material is actually all OR from editors playing the ROM on their computers. I doubt enough coverage in RSs could ever be found. But, our criteria for inclusion on video games is incredibly low, so who knows. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redirect. The reason why I redirected the article was because after an extensive search through Google Books, Google News, Bing News, the Reliable Sources Google Search Engine, and the Situaitonal Sources Google Search Engine, I really found very little of note to mention. There's a lot of people saying that same things about it, and that's about it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 02:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • New Age Retro Hippie, for some reason I read the history wrong and thought the user before you had redirected it, otherwise I would have left as is. I can't imagine you did that on a VG article without checking for sources thoroughly. :/ That's what I get for drive-by editing. Oh well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Virtual Boy games as a valid search term. @JohnnyMrNinja, this looks straightforward, so how would you feel about withdrawing the deletion nom for a redirect? (Such solutions are better outcomes to pursue before coming to AfD.) czar  10:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm hesitant to delete an article for a game that received an entire 2 pages dedicated to it by a nationally publicated, hard copy source like Nintendo Power. See here. 1up.com, a reliable source, covered it a bit, and suggested that Nintendo Power had even written a review for the game, according to this. This fansite seems to suggest it made appearances in a bunch of other print magazines at the time as well. I think this just barely scrapes above the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I would call the NP article a preview spread—heavy on the images, low on info. (I'd only use it as a source if the reviews didn't cover the basic gameplay.) The 1UP article makes passing mention. Flipping through the fansite sources, there is no in-depth coverage. Most of the scans just mention the game by name without saying a word more. There's not enough to source a full article on the game, but it would be worth mentioning in the VB console article, methinks. czar  22:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The NP article, while there's lots of pictures, is still two pages - one page without images - so that would be significant coverage. The 1up.com source, yes, I realize is more of a passing mention, I was more swayed by their mention that there were reviews/review copies circulated - more about the prospect of sources being out there somewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as barely meeting notability per the above. I did a quick search for Japanese sources and didn't find anything. I'm sure it was covered in Famitsu and other trade magazines, but their articles are not available online. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we not make "there must be sources" arguments? Let's try to find these external reviews before we keep based on their supposed existence and then no one ever does the sleuthing to find them. If we can also keep in mind the game wasn't actually released, so the existence of these reviews (Famitsu's for example) will have been a fluke—more unlikely than not. czar  12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Can we not dismiss something about which you obviously know very little? Famitsu and other trade magazines often have articles on games 1-2 years before they come out. They'll have announcement articles, productions articles, and even articles about a project which has been shut down. I never said there would be reviews, but simply articles about the game. I saw these kinds of articles all the time when I lived in Japan. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
No need to be patronizing. I'm an experienced WPVG editor. If you're unable to find the relevant Famitsu articles, which editors rarely can, then the article will lay dormant in the same unsourced state, collecting cruft. We redirect these articles so they can only host what we can reference. There is no justification to keep an article if the argument is that sourcing must exist somewhere and no one is willing to find it. czar  15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Gradski Park Kumanovo[edit]

Gradski Park Kumanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gradski Park Kumanovo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable park in a town of 70,000. Creating editor is only adding articles about this town, notable or not. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm looking not only at this but at a wider range of articles created by this user, since I think that the context matters. All of the articles that I looked at were not (yet) at WP notability level. There are, however, other venues for local information if this person wants to pursue them, including sites like OpenStreetMap and LocalWiki, both of which welcome information on localities regardless of notability. Meanwhile, this and other similar articles should be either deleted or user-fied, and the user should be encourage to go through AfC. LaMona (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dogface (book)[edit]

Dogface (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dogface (book)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

As far as I can tell, this isn't a notable book. There are several incidental references to it, but nothing that I think meets WP:NBOOK for substance or depth. Mikeblas (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Goldsmiths College alumni[edit]

List of Goldsmiths College alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Goldsmiths College alumni" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This simply duplicates the category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, it can be edited so it doesn't duplicate the category, by adding years alive, profession etc. Siuenti (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It duplicates the category, so what? This being said, I am not convinced this is a worthy standalone list. Tigraan (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, completely standard list of notable alumni of a notable educational institute, passing WP:LISTPURP easily both as an informational list highly relevant to Goldsmiths, University of London and as a biographical index of people by shared educational background. The nomination is not valid in that it is contra WP:NOTDUP but doesn't even acknowledge this, let alone present a reason for not following that guideline here. We honestly should make such nominations eligible for speedy closes, as they are just a waste of the community's time and an undeniable failure of WP:BEFORE section A3. @Tigraan: There is no way we would ever delete this information entirely, which leaves us with either keeping as is or merging. It is clearly not small enough to fit in the parent college article, however, so keeping a standalone list is not merely "worthy" but the only practical option. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I would point out that even if Goldsmiths is notable and every single person on the list is notable, I would still like to see evidence that Goldsmiths alumni are notable as a group (see WP:LISTN). So, yes, I see a way that "we would ever delete this information entirely". This being said, if the information is kept, then a standalone list is certainly the way to go.
After some more digging I found those two sources: [2] [3] that kinda sorta discuss alumni as a group. Of course it is really hard to find a source about alumni that is not about the college itself so I would say that is enough, hence, keep.
It may be necessary to trim down the list but that is for a talk page discussion, not AfD. Tigraan (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
First, LISTN is expressly limited to standalone lists, so no, it could not be applied to eliminate any alumni sublists within an article. Second, as LISTN itself acknowledges, it's only one way of analyzing lists. It is not and never has been a requirement that all lists must pass. Here, regarding a list that could either exist as a subsection of the school article, or as a standard navigational index of articles, it's just not applicable (as reading it in conjunction with other list guidelines should make clear, such as WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and even the intro to WP:NOTDIR). Applying LISTN tends to make more sense (or perhaps only makes sense) when we're dealing with unusual classifications or groups of nonnotable people or things we otherwise wouldn't presume merit listing together absent finding sources that do so. Anyway, it's honestly one of our most poorly worded and confusing guidelines, tending more to mislead than to actually guide.

Why do you think it would be "necessary to trim"? As you say, that's outside the scope of this AFD, but if these are all verifiably alumni of the college, and all merit articles, there's no basis at all for "trimming", beyond maybe excluding someone who only took one class. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per postdlf and WP:CLN. A list of notable alumni is a standard part of any school article, and this one is long enough to warrant a spinoff. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chidera Okolie[edit]

Chidera Okolie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chidera Okolie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

A 21 years old 500L law student of the University of Nigeria Enugu Campus that fails WP:GNG and no indication of passing WP:NAUTHOR. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 09:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Bank of the West Classic[edit]

2015 Bank of the West Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2015 Bank of the West Classic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Maybe it created too early, Eastbourne's has not yet been created by anyone! 333-blue 08:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shaheed Comrade Tazul Islam[edit]

Shaheed Comrade Tazul Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shaheed Comrade Tazul Islam" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

A case of WP:BLP1E. The poorly written article is about a person notable for one event. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 08:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Kern[edit]

Mark Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mark Kern" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, this person has received quite a bit of coverage by reliable sources, such as
Mark Kern reportedly fired from his job as CEO of Red 5 Studios, Gamasutra
Mark Kern addresses his departure from Red 5 Studios, Engadget
The rise and fall of Mark Kern: how one man may have doomed Firefall and The9 (UPDATED), TechInAsia
Red 5 co-founder Mark Kern steps down as CEO, VG247
Firefall dev CEO apologises for open beta woes, VG247
Kern: MMO noob zones cost about $430K per gameplay hour, VG247
Firefall boss feels MMO developers have “killed a genre” by catering to accessibility over achievement, VG247
Red 5 boss calls console model “broken”, “dead”, VG247
The last three sources I feel are especially interesting and can be used to write about his views on video gaming. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. You're right that there isn't much that wouldn't also fit into other articles, but there is additionally enough coverage about his own views as a public figure to warrant his own article. There's actually enough from Engadget alone (and there are plenty more hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, though many are duplicate coverage). czar  02:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not one source for his career history.--SimpleStitch (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Un-notable. Are we supposed to have a wiki page for every employee of every company in the world? Apparently the most exciting thing he's done is get fired, and plenty of people don't have pages for being fired.81.104.217.234 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No comment on the aforementioned links? Specifically the Engadget link to their category of Kern-focused articles? czar  03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not enough sources for career history, not notable enough to be mentioned on the World of Warcraft page or any other game's pages except for Firefall.--Frybread (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Breuler[edit]

Robert Breuler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Robert Breuler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Accomplishments don`t satisfy WP:ACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Vince Duverge[edit]

Vince Duverge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vince Duverge" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Winner of minor local awards only, fails WP:CREATIVE WWGB (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Vince Duverge won his first award (which wasn't a minor one for Mauritius) in 2009 and is now well known in Mauritius for his comedy work.[1] Like Miselaine Duval Vince has been doing a lot in Mauritian comedy industry by introducing web comedy to Mauritius. [2] After having his success online he has been working as a radio host for the Mauritian Broadcasting Corporation's radio station: Music FM and hosted a funny and satirical show called Funky Show [3]. [4] In 2013, Duverge was mentioned by the notorious journalist Shenaz Patel as a "new comedian" in Mauritius. [5]. [6]

Arielle (singer)[edit]

Arielle (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Arielle (singer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Singer may not meet music notability requirements. Does not mention any charted hits or albums. Perhaps she is too young yet. Also, there is no info found on her full name. Tinton5 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep. As the references in the article shows, she has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Charted albums are not necessary. See criteria 1 in WP:MUSBIO. Ross-c (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tuzcuoğlu Mehmet Ali[edit]

Tuzcuoğlu Mehmet Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tuzcuoğlu Mehmet Ali" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Delete: as non-notable subject in hagiographic, OR and POV-ridden article. Quis separabit? 13:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1829 Dawson[edit]

1829 Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1829 Dawson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Should be deleted and redirected to the list article, List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Weak Keep: I found a pair of light curve studies and a few mentions in other journal articles, so this seems like a borderline keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. I see the same thing [4] [5] but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles Haigh-Wood[edit]

Charles Haigh-Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Charles Haigh-Wood" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:GNG. The guy mostly appears in books etc because of being father-in-law to T. S. Eliot. A local historian - Ken Craven - has effectively self-published this family biography but otherwise there is little other than primary sources of the type already used in the article and passing mentions such as this. There are also some passing mentions in art sale catalogues, basically repeating his d.o.b./d.o.d. and a brief description of the artwork. The BBC says even less.

Unless exhibiting at the Royal Academy automatically confers notability, the subject matter does not reach our bar. The article appears to reflect the niche interest of its creator but little interest from others. Sitush (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep: There is discussion of Haigh-Wood's paintings. E.g. http://www.americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/yearbooks/02_yearbook/pdf/06_Dowhower_final.pdf For the Royal Academy exhibitions, from WP:ARTIST "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." I've not been able to find out whether these exhibitions featured Haigh-Wood's works as a significant part, or whether his pictures were one out of many. I've also been unable to find if significant art galleries hold works by Haigh-Wood. It appears that the UK national gallery and portrait gallery do not, unless my search-fu has failed. However, as this appears to be a case where more in-depth research is necessary to characterise his notability, I suggest that the article remains until someone can put in the necessary work. Ross-c (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you may find that VictorianPainter is the person who can "put in the necessary work" ... the problem being that there is nothing further to say and WP:BURDEN applies. I'm afraid that I can say no more about that here because of the potential for outing. I have an inherently low opinion of topic notability guidelines, so it is probably best that I do not comment on trash like that.

    As far as the RA exhibitions go, Haigh-Wood was a mere Associate of the Royal Academy and literally tens of thousands of paintings have been exhibited there. FWIW, I am resident close to Haigh-Wood's home ground, I know a lot of the local history and even round here, he is known mainly for the Eliot connection (and not known at all by most people). He really is a minor figure. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • leaning delete The only significant biographical data I could find was in a biography of his daughter. I couldn't find anything suggesting him as a significant artist. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chris Nelson (director)[edit]

Chris Nelson (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Chris Nelson (director)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Delete: non-notable dilettante in the entertainment business. Quis separabit? 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Passes WP:DIRECTOR as his works have had multiple reviews in independent periodicals. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ass-backwards-sundance-review-417505 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/movies/ass-backwards-a-comedy-by-chris-nelson.html?_r=0 http://variety.com/2013/film/markets-festivals/ass-backwards-1117949080/ as well as the three references in the article proper. Ross-c (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cuvie[edit]

Cuvie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cuvie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Un-notable author. Sources are from the author's blog. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Gujira[edit]

Gujira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gujira" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Un-notable author DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shinozuka Jouji[edit]

Shinozuka Jouji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shinozuka Jouji" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Un-notable author DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|   08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1828 Kashirina[edit]

1828 Kashirina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1828 Kashirina" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet N:ASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted / redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. As the number is under 2000, needs not to be done unilaterally per previous discussions, so taking to AfD rather than bold redirect or prod. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Earth Surface Dynamics[edit]

Earth Surface Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Earth Surface Dynamics" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "(Copernicus journals have a history of becoming listed in the WP:NOTABILITY indices once the required time period has passed, and is certainly influential already in its field." No evidence of influence available. Notability is not inherited and even much larger and longer established publishers than Copernicus from time to time start journals that fail after only a few years. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Copied from my user talk page response to User:Randykitty:
"Thanks for the notification. I removed it. I can add some sources and give my assurances that it will be indexed in the future. But if you feel you would like to delete it, do go ahead under the condition that it is archived and re-added once it is ISI-indexed, this being a process that just takes some time. One other option would be to just list it in a page on Copernicus Publications alongside their other journals, but that means that we can't use the nice journal infobox template... I unfortunately do not have time for WP legal-wrangling at present -- or for many contributions, even more sadly. So I am unlikely to do very much. Been gone for quite some time and just moving slowly back in. Andy Wickert (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)"
Andy Wickert (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, see WP:CRYSTAL. Even large publishers like Sage, Elsevier, or Springer sometimes start new journals that fail after a few years. I see no reason why we should assume that Copernicus somehow is different. If ever this gets notable, we can create an article, but at this point, it's simply WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove, then. I forget -- are deleted articles archived so they can be brought back from the dead? Or should this be sandboxed somewhere? Andy Wickert (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No, they are not and deleted articles should not be sandboxed either. However, you can easily make a copy and store it on your computer. Alternatively, once the journal becomes notable, you can go to WP:DRV and request undeletion (perhaps that's actually what you meant with archiving :-). --Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Johnny Mone Johnny[edit]

Johnny Mone Johnny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Johnny Mone Johnny" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Highly promotional. Also the article contains poor sources to justify the content. VagaboundWind (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger Barclay[edit]

Roger Barclay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Roger Barclay" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails NACTOR + GNG –Davey2010Talk 02:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not the most notable, but has billed appearance in notable movie Diana & Me being moderately billed for that., as well as long-running supporting roles in House of Anubis and Holby City. His four episode (out of six) appearance in Pride and Prejudice is also a non-trivial (though not main) role. Overall, I feel that these appearances plus his prolific other appearances justify an article. Ross-c (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I have the right to comment but still... As for the amount of informations about this man, I was not able to find much about him, but over time will appear more and more information about this actor. So I think we need to keep this article.---Christaya1002 (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 13:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Eran Thomson[edit]

Eran Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eran Thomson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I've not found the single thing that makes them pass Wikipedia's notability criteria that I am aware of. I cant find independent coverage of Laugh-Masters Academy, Koobar or Friendlet; the films are mostly shorts; the 'Greens ad' did get a bit of attention at the time, but the creators sadly didnt get a lot of focus as a result. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've searched sources but likewise can't find any one thing that confers notability. asnac (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Aive[edit]

Aive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 13:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 04:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

VB Pictures[edit]

VB Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "VB Pictures" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Alt name:(Find sources: "Vishal Bhardwaj Productions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)
  • Redirect / partial merge for now to its founder Vishal Bhardwaj. Simple enough to speak there about it as part of his overall career. If someone determines that these many sources ( [6] [7] ) can be used for expansion and sourcing, I'd say keep instead.Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 04:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

GetAdmin[edit]

GetAdmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "GetAdmin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No clear notability or potential for expansion, nor any references. No claim at all of significance. MopSeeker (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Davood Roostaei[edit]

Davood Roostaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Davood Roostaei" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I find very little coverage of this artist, who doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG. I took a look at WP:NARTIST, which lets artists qualify if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Since the article says he invented a style called cryptorealism, I looked that up--and came up almost empty. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Allentown Fire Department[edit]

Allentown Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Allentown Fire Department" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This is a non-notable fire department. The only sources available are from the fire department website. Tinton5 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There are plenty of sources available for this and so the topic is notable. They include:
  1. Allentown: The Story Of A Pittsburgh Neighborhood
  2. Living in the Allentown Area
  3. Souvenir History of the Allentown Fire Department
  4. Historic homes and institutions and genealogical and personal memoirs of the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania
  5. The Firehouse: an architectural and social history
  6. Past, Present, and Future of the City of Allentown, PA
  7. Statistics of Fire Departments of Cities Having a Population of Over 30,000
  8. Fire and Water Engineering
  9. Men of Allentown
  10. Allentown, Pa. Bicentennial, 1962
Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
comment- I really don't think it's a big deal to keep it but I agree that it does seem like a lot of superfluous information. The problem is that almost everything on the page comes from Allentownpa.gov and not a book or books about the fire department. It needs those things in order to meet the notability criteria.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Daydream Catapult[edit]

Daydream Catapult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Daydream Catapult" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Marginally notable band. Claims to have song used on TV series, but no independent evidence provided or explanation of song usage. Article lacks non-trivial support needed to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shreveport Rugby Football Club[edit]

Shreveport Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shreveport Rugby Football Club" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Possibly unfree files[edit]

May 4[edit]

File:Regis de Ramel 5.jpg[edit]

File:Regis de Ramel 5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • contradictory copyright marks: uploaded as "own work" by User:Gary Zenker, but exif-marked as "copyright Jim Graham". Fut.Perf. 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Files for deletion[edit]

May 4[edit]

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg[edit]

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jcpag2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

An image used under a claim of fair use depicting spectra of different classification of stars and sciency stuff that I don't understand. It was tagged as replaceable fair use by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) and disputed by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), who said "I do not think that 16 spectra can be easily replaced. All published spectra are copyrighted." This seems sufficiently complicated that it should have an FFD, not a unilateral decision, so that people who understand such things can explain it.

There are at least two issues to consider: (1) are the spectra themselves subject to copyright? This seems odd, but for a while (until the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), you could patent naturally occurring gene sequences, so courts rule odd things sometimes. (2) If the spectra themselves are not subject to copyright, does this image pass the threshold of creativity? If I create a simple representation of a mathematical or scientific reality where there was no creative thought process involved, then there is no copyright.

So the four possibilities are (a) the spectra are copyrighted, any representation of them would be a derivative work of that copyrighted work, but we should be able to make a WP:FREER version; (b) the spectra are copyrighted, but this representation is a non-creative representation of the underlying reality and so there is no need for a WP:FREER version; (c) the spectra are not copyrighted and we can make a free content version; (d) the spectra are not copyrighted and this representation is PD-ineligible. B (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • My argument was nothing to do whether the spectra were PD-ineligible, but due to the claim of fair use. There are PD spectra available from before 1923 in the US. Also photos taken in Australia prior to 1955 are public domain, and US certainly recognises these if taken before 1946. Commons is not deleting those prior to 1955 any more either. There would also be crown copyright expired images available for stellar spectra. (1964 and before). These may all take a bit of work to invert and colour and fatten up to a nice looking bar, but the point is that with a bit of work this cold be assembled from public domain sources.
  • On the topic of copyright of spectra, someone else could also make a new spectrum of the same source, and it could look very very similar to the previously taken one. Only differing in noise, linear shift or minor spectral line changes to to star-spots or variability, eclipsing etc. It would be very hard for the earlier spectroscopist who had a similar image to cl,aim copyright over the new image. But I suppose the point is whether the practice is for people to ask for permission to use spectra (answer seems to be yes) so there is an assumption that they are subject to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Color gradient illustrating a sorites paradox.png
    • @Graeme Bartlett:Thank you for replying and this is where I don't know enough about the science to make a judgment call and so I wanted to bring it here. Consider this scenario: there is a mathematical formula that defines the gradient to the right. We would all agree that neither the list of color values nor the gradient generated by those values is subject to copyright because it is not creative. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the image we are considering is a different scenario because there was skill involved, correct? The standard for creativity is that if two people set out to do the same thing, would their works be indistinguishable from each other. And I think from what you are saying, the answer is no, their works would not be indistinguishable, and so this image is copyrightable. So then as a follow-up question, what spectra are needed to show here in order for the reader to understand the topic? Is it sufficient to show old spectra or could you not understand this without seeing the more modern, still subject to copyright, spectra? --B (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know the legalities and I don't know the genetics science well, but I think there's substantial work involved in just identifying a gene sequence, and that effort is what makes the discovery itself copyrightable in genetics. Anyone with a cheap telescope and a spectrograph can go out and (re)discover the spectrum of any of these stars, so the spectra themselves aren't reasonably subject to copyright. And even if they were, the basic properties of the spectra of each type of star have been known since the 19th century, so the copyright on the spectrum itself would have long since expired. But I think that almost certainly any particular representation of the spectrum, and probably any particular measurement of the spectrum of a particular star (irrespective of the representation), would be subject to copyright.
  • Old spectra would be fine for demonstrating the basic properties of each stellar classification. However, the detailed descriptions in Stellar classification#Spectral types are probably only reasonably illustrated by a fairly modern image. eg The sentence "O stars have dominant lines of absorption and sometimes emission for He II lines, prominent ionized (Si IV, O III, N III, and C III) and neutral helium lines, strengthening from O5 to O9, and prominent hydrogen Balmer lines, although not as strong as in later types." is talking about many of the faint bumps in the spectra evident in the image we're discussing; an older replacement image would not show the detail necessary to visualize what the text is talking about. (Of course, the non-free use rationale should explain this need. The current rationale, "OBAFGKM", is not a reasonable purpose of use.)
  • (Putting on my practicing professional astronomer hat.) This is, in practice, not something that astronomers think about much; once a set of data is published, it's normally considered available for anyone to use with a citation, although it's quite rare for astronomers to bother with a proper license. The major journals have two different sets of licenses: some journals have authors retain the copyright, while others sign the copyright over to the society that publishes the journal. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Chupa Chups Melody Pop.jpg[edit]

File:Chupa Chups Melody Pop.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Northamerica1000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is a promo photo of a candy wrapper used under a claim of fair use. This image was previously tagged as replaceable fair use. WP:CSD#F7 only permits speedy deletion if it can be replaced with a free content image, but in this case, it could only be replaced with a WP:FREER image, so it needs to come to FFD. B (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep – No fair use or public domain images of Whistle Pops have been found after several internet searches. No free or public domain images of this product exist in the world. Content to facilitate creation of an image that adequately provides the same information has also not been found. As such, use of the copyrighted image from Chupa Chups is permissible, as per WP:NFCC. Images of and content about whistle pops available on the internet are literally all copyrighted. Furthermore, I have requested on my talk page that the deletion nominator provide evidence that a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, and included a ping to them there and added a talkback template on their talk page directing them to the discussion. It does not appear that such content qualifying the deletion of this page actually exists on the internet.
Also, omission of the image would significantly decrease the educational value of the article, whereas its use significantly enhances it. The image functions solely as an educational tool to provide illustrative context about the topic, is functional to enhance and improve the article for educational purposes, and is a small-sized, low-resolution image. No free equivalent is available. North America1000 00:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Gatewaycmb.jpg[edit]

Error: You must replace Gatewaycmb.jpg with the actual name of the file you are nominating for deletion when using {{subst:ffd2}}. The image hasn't verified Wikipedia's rules and regulations.The image isn't copyrighted, thereby I strongly consider that deleting the image would be much preferred Danusker (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

May 4[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:People associated with the campaign for Scottish devolution[edit]

Convert Category:People associated with the campaign for Scottish devolution to article List of people associated with the campaign for Scottish devolution
Nominator's rationale: The campaign for Scottish devolution is a very diffuse grouping, spanning different periods, groupings and ideological stand points. To use a context-less category to arrange these people is not a very useful method of content navigation - a list if a much better arrangement as we can supply additional detail on how the person relates to the campaign. Furthermore, it is highly subjective as to what degree a person needs to be "associated" with the idea to warrant inclusion. SFB 13:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Colored hentai manga[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-verifiable category DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Uncensored hentai manga[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-verifiable category DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Uncensored and colored hentai manga[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-verifiable category DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Solicitors-General of the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is no such office as "Solicitor-General of the United Kingdom", and never has been. Scotland has a separate legal system from England and Wales, and this category tries to conflate the two.
The target Category:Law Officers of the Crown in the United Kingdom already includes the Attorneys-General for the UK's constituent countries without needing a subcat. It can easily include the Solicitors without this misleading subcat BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)



Redirects[edit]

May 4[edit]

User:Qualrus[edit]

Does this User even exist? JZCL 12:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes the user exists (which is why you can press the "user contributions" page on the left side and see their one edit, which was to make this redirect). It has something to do with [8], an 2011 project to redesign the new account system, apparently. I ask some users there about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Looking into it some more, it appears some new users got these experimental new account pages, and a link to the Wikimedia project appears in the new user log summary. What this means is that a new user registered and by pure coincidence was one of those given the experimental sign-up pages. That said, keep, since if that's what they wanted, there's no reason to tell them they can't, no good reason to delete it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to soft redirect per WP:RFDO#From userspace. If Qualrus really wanted his/her userspace to be redirected to the United Kingdom, that option will still be there, but one would have to actually make that click instead of it happening automatically. That way, there isn't a WP:SURPRISE. Tavix | Talk  20:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: All of these outcomes are possible, so more input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Tavix. User is inactive and looks to have been created as a development test; page is harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Eighty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 86th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history. Ninney (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I merged the two discussions as they both have the exact same rationale. Tavix  Talk  00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Eighty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India was created by myself in January 2014 as a redirect. At the time it had incoming links, although it no longer does. Given that the target contains the most complete information we have on this topic (a shockingly scant 30 words), I'd say keep with the aim to re-target to a more comprehensive article as and when such is written. - TB (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See relisting comments on the 44th amendment discussion below. The same questions apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Forty-Forth Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 44th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history Ninney (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I merged the discussions as all three of them have the exact same rationale. Tavix  Talk  00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per the discussion of the 86th amendment above, the target of these redirects contains the best information we have on the topic. It's far from comprehensive, but better than nothing. When a better article is added, re-target to that. - TB (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm not too familiar with Indian government, but the question we need to ask ourselves here is whether the 44th amendment would ever realistically have its own article. If so, it may make sense to delete per WP:REDLINK. If not, the target article is the logical place to have discussion on the amendment, and the redirect would be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly[edit]

Delete. Not synonymous, WP:NOUN, WP:NOTDIC. 'Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - meh. They point where they should and they're harmless, per WP:CHEAP. Though I'm certain you can probably prove me wrong. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOUN refers to article titles, not redirects. This is certainly useful in linking because you can just use brackets instead of piping. Tavix | Talk  17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

보이지 않는 도시들[edit]

Delete. Not a Korean topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I see no special connection to Korean. Leave the foreign title at Korean Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Quietscheentchen[edit]

Delete. Not a German topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Garland terror attack[edit]

POV title with little likelihood of being a legitimate search phrase. - MrX 12:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is actually what i typed in that brought me to the page when i first searched for it.XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

P.O.O.P[edit]

Trivial acronym from SpongeBob. It's missing a period at the end so I'm not sure if it's plausible to retarget to Poop... Tavix | Talk  05:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's not mentioned at the target (is it a euphemism, or whatever more-specialised word describes that kind of euphemism such as D.I.V.O.R.C.E.)? I am not familiar with the series beyond recognising its protagonist.) P.O.O.P. with the final punctuation is red. (Perhaps that's a good parallel, since D-I-V-O-R-C-E is a different article, but they cross-refer, since the first is a parody of the second). Si Trew (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The reference is from the episode "Krusty Krab Training Video" (Episode 50 season 3) but seeing there is no article for that episode I do not see how this would be a good redirect to the series as a whole. FYI the acronym is "People Order Our Patties". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chkn[edit]

Per WP:RTYPO, I think this is way too many letters removed to be plausible. My search brought up things like a file extension, for example. Tavix | Talk  00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. As a typo, yes this is implausible. As an abbreviation however it is very plausible, formed by removing the vowels but retaining the consonants. Whether it is a useful redirect is a different quesition. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, I can see this being plausible txtspeak (and possibly twitterspeak with its character limit), although I always spell out words in full. Seems unambiguous, that being said, WP:NOTDIC, and we are not a translation dictionary for txtspeak. CHKN is a song by Ashrae Fax, acccording to gsearch, but presumably not notable. Somewhat absurdly, the restaurant "Chkn-N-Mo" in Spokane, Washington has the website chicken-n-more.com which rather defeats their deliberate "phonetic spelling", in my opinion (http/chkn-no-mo.com is owned by a domain name reseller, http.com). Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per NOTDIC and to discourage the perpetuation of bad English. We shouldnt accommodate every plausible typo or incorrect variant, at the risk of dumbing down the internet. --Animalparty-- (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • OOh I was so tempted to take a "c" out of your "accommodate" and see how long it would take to see you notice your being "dumbed down'! Nice to see you, @Animalparty:. Si Trew (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Patently English as she is spoke is exactly what I does. But not everyone speaks or was taught or has an interest in languages as I do, and the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to get people to learn stuff, not to whack them on the head if they make a typo (I make loads, anyone can tell you). English is such a widely-spoken language across the world in all kinds of varieties, that we cannot make value judgments like that. (F'rexample, I wrote "cannot" and not "can not", and I am in a minority with that, but insist it is right. "F'rexample", by the way, is in Bierce, one of the most literate West Coast Americans of the late 19th Century, and a man you would be hard done by to accuse of illiteracy.) It is not our job to teach people English. WP:SIMPLE presents things in Simple English but does not seem to be doing too well, because people who want to learn English want to learn properly correct, well-written English. But we have enough trouble with genuine concerns with WP:ENGVAR without making artificial ones. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to being a vague abbreviation that could also be an abbreviation for "checking". Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete mostly per Steel1943 although it is less likely to be a compatible abbreviation for chequing, however that is also a delete argument. Ivanvector (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

May 4[edit]

Template:Neg[edit]

Template:Neg (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

The template produces a hidden -{{{1}}} (i.e. 1st parameter preceded by a hyphen) and displays −{{{1}}} (i.e. 1st parameter preceded by a hyphen). The intention was for numbers to be sorted correctly. It may have been useful in 2008 when it was created but now it is not as "−" (a minus sign) is recognised by the sorting thing anyway. The code should be replaced by −{{{1}}}, all transclusions should be substituted then it should be deleted. Jimp 16:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan[edit]

Template:Highways of the 1927 Arizona Highway Plan (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

This navbox does not appear to list all of the state highways in Arizona in 1927. Additionally, per past precedents, navboxes listing all of a state's highways have been deleted several times between 2005 and 2009. Imzadi 1979  04:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Can be better covered in a list. Dough4872 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • convert to a list article, if one doesn't already exist. Frietjes (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Miscellany (WikiProjects, user pages, etc.)[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#2015-05-04

Deletion review[edit]

4 May 2015[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.mauritiusfilm.mu/English/Documents/SOUVENIR%20MAGAZINE.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.lemauricien.com/article/blog-et-video-les-vloggers-se-lachent
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzyHmilksZ8
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Mauritius
  5. ^ http://www.lemauricien.com/blog/non-allo-quoi
  6. ^ http://www.lemauricien.com/article/vincent-duverge-l-humour-porte-ses-fruits