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

Roman Saini[edit]

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

No improvement of general notability since the last three times this article was deleted. Blackguard 06:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Severin Sisters[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and appear to be retired from music (old info indicates they are now public school music teachers, which is cool, but not notable.) In six years since the last AfD, the band had gotten even less notable. Oh, I know notability isn't temporary, but despite this closing as keep the 1st time, I stand by my original AfD that they weren't notable to begin with. And to be clear, I did my due diligence. The band's website is now in Japanese, their talent agent hasn't updated the band's page in three years (and the band isn't listed on their main page as part of their talent stable), their Allmusic listing contains 2 albums on an unknown label (I checked). If you don't want to read WP:BAND the criteria this group clearly doesn't meet include: all of the ones pertaining to charting albums or singles, concert tours with significant coverage, major label albums, winner of major awards or competitions (emphasis mine), use in major TV, film, etc., being featured in a national broadcast, their music being in heavy rotation on the radio, and being prominent representatives of a local scene or style of music, a group consisting of 2 or more independently notable musicians. That leaves us with the final criterion: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." This group has not received multiple, non-trivial coverage in in independent reliable sources. Most of the Internet coverage is simply entertainment listings. There is simply no significant coverage of this band. No prejudice for recreation if they become active (and notable!) in their performance career again. Oh and P.S. opening for notable bands does not confer notability, as that is not inherited. Thank you for reading. Valfontis (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 06:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 06:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nasty Little Man[edit]

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

Previously deleted under PROD and later contested post mortum.[1]. As stated by the restoring editor, notability is not inherited. Company appears to have 1-10 employees[2]. CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search brought up the PR firm in passing ([3], [4], [5]) but not really anything that truly focuses on the firm itself. Other than them being the inspiration for the song Hello, Nasty and some mild coverage about NLM having a catfight with another record company, there really is nothing out there and the aforementioned claims to fame aren't even remotely enough to warrant having an article. This is pretty much a classic example of WP:NOTINHERITED where you have someone/something that deals with notable people but none of those deals ever translated into coverage for the PR firm. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:54, 3 March 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 06:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Lloyd Stephens[edit]

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

I really don't want to do this, but I have been looking through several pages of Google results for various keyword permutations with very little coming up to show notability. Lots of copies of this bio/Wiki mirrors, and plenty of hits for various other Lloyd Stephens. I have confirmed that he exists, and I REALLY want to see that he is notable, but basically, this is an unreferenced BLP and I can't find any sources that appear to pass reliability guidelines, hence bringing this for discussion. Mabalu (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment/addenda - The reason I want him to turn out to be notable is that he is a deaf comedian, and I think we need more coverage of notably disabled people on here, particularly those who have succeeded despite the challenges of their disability. But if the sources don't exist... Am surprised we don't have a delsort category for disability/different ability topics, btw. Mabalu (talk) 13:27, 27 February 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 06:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna's untitled eighth studio album[edit]

Rihanna's untitled eighth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rihanna's untitled eighth studio album" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Per WP:NALBUMS, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Also, notability is not inherited, just because it's a Rihanna album does not automatically make it notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Uglyz[edit]

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

With all due deference to WP:CSB, I don't see how this band is notable. Of the non-dead links, one "reference" is borderline reliable while the others are blogs or blatantly promotional in tone. Google is not throwing up anything else.  Philg88 talk 05:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 talk 05:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 talk 05:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Madison Collins "Keurig Girl"[edit]

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

This week's internet viral story du jour. I believe we should wait to see if this story has any effect past the single week's news before allowing an article to exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Collins has already received enough attention and media for a page. Over five articles have been written about Collins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohshaleyeah (talkcontribs) 05:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pernicious (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with no ambiguous topics listed, only partial title matches. Has previously been redirected to the only full title match, but it should just be deleted since the disambiguation is not required. Ivanvector (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Page murder/suicide incident[edit]

Steven Page murder/suicide incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Steven Page murder/suicide incident" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Fails GNG. -- WV 03:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Koch[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Hunkins[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Hastings Hunkins[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Hunkins[edit]

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

No real notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Moses Chamberlain[edit]

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

No real notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoplophobia[edit]

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

Not a sufficiently notable neologism (WP:NEO). Previous AfD from two years ago was closed no consensus, but most of the keep arguments look pretty poor. The article as it is is extraordinary poor and poorly sourced, but this is not a nomination based on the present article but rather due to being unable to find sufficient sources demonstrating that this term is notable. ("Term" is important, as a source that talks about the fear of guns but doesn't use this term is not about this subject). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I opined for keeping at the last discussion (the extended discussion is there). I don't think the keep opinions were particularly weak, in fact the delete side of the argument contained the WP:JUSTAVOTEs that encouraged me toward the other side. There are sources like this which talk about the term in the context of its listing in Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders (2006), refuting the little bit of WP:OR in the article and without mentioning Cooper. If anything, the term is more widely used and cited now than it was in 2009 from the looks of it. Stlwart111 06:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Hunkins, Sr.[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Edward A. S. Hulton[edit]

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

No notability on his own. Falls into the category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Bombshell (video game)[edit]

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

Promo of a game under dev. WP:CRYSTAL Staszek Lem (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Raymond Emerson[edit]

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

No notability on his own. Falls into the category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary Billings French[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Adam Hawkes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Received significant coverage in Adam Hawkes of Saugus, Mass., 1605-1672: the first six generations in America and Adam Hawkes, 1608-1672: His life and times. Also received coverage in [6] [7] [8] [9]. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Hirolovesswords. There is significant coverage in the sources h/she noted above WordSeventeen (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Gottlieb Göttlich[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir John Wright[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Erika Cosby[edit]

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

No real notability on her own. Falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Evin Cosby[edit]

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

No true notability on her own. Falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ensa Cosby[edit]

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

No notability on her own. Falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Erinn Cosby[edit]

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

No notability on her own; falls into category of WP:INHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Zachary Nelson[edit]

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

No notability. Only primary sources used in article. Fails WP:GNG. -- WV 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Asha Bhosle-Kishore Kumar Pair[edit]

Asha Bhosle-Kishore Kumar Pair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Asha Bhosle-Kishore Kumar Pair" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

We have separate articles on List of songs recorded by Kishore Kumar and List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle aside from the Category:Kishore Kumar songs and Category:Asha Bhosle songs. Also, the article doesn't in even remote sense mention how and why the list of pair's duet songs are notable enough for their own separate article. Also adding following article in same Afd:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've made a search on the net. I've found an interview of Asha Bhosle in which she recollects mmemories with Kishore Kumar, that how they were rejected as a duo and then secured a strong career by changing their singing styles. Asha Bhosle says

So, this proves that they were good friends and also sang many duets. Mayank Kapadia (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

References
  • Keep -Both subjects meet GNG standard. Asha Bhosle and Kishore Kumar have sung together 600 songs and Asha Bhosle-Mohammed Rafi Pair, a thousand, yes, 1,000, in a time span of more than three decades (1950-1987). It was this time Bollywood was on its rise and these achievements are definitely an indication of notability. If one is looking for multiple newspapers on them, they should be aware that Indian newspapers do not keep archives for publications before 2000 (WP:INDAFD), so, that may be a tedious job. There still are however many coverage on them in the mainstream reputed sources published after 2000, few are in the respective articles, one is above my comment. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - the individual duet partners may be notable but the duet partnership itself has to be shown to be independently notable to the extent it needs a separate article, and that hasn't been proven here. Without wanting to trip a WP:OTHERSTUFF alarm, we don't have articles for e.g. Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 February 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) 00:16, 27 February 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) 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Static Television[edit]

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

Tagged since 2008. Not likely a notable WP:TVSHOW. jps (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkin' Funny[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:TVSHOW. No evidence of outside notability and not nationally synicated. jps (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Conservative Roundtable[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:TVSHOW. No sources independent of the show recognize its notabilty. jps (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 05:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as G4. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farman Nawaz. Diannaa (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nawaz Farman Khan[edit]

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

Lots of articles written by this journalist. Very little written about this journalist to establish notability. Article marked as recreation of Farman Nawaz, but removed by article creator and then another editor. Don't see how this meets any notability criteria - "references" are mainly examples of his work. reddogsix (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Igorrr[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG and WP:NMG. Λeternus (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: To me, Igorrr is a notable artist/band. According to the notability criteria for music: Igorrr has four albums on Ad Noiseam, a 12-year old label with a roster containing tens of artists and bands who seem to deserve their own Wikipedia pages, which meets criterion 5 in the list: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." A simple Google search gives hundreds of albums reviews and interviews by independent media, including renowned websites, French and international. Here is a list of reviews and interviews for his 2012 "Halleluyah" album alone. 85.171.44.43 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) 85.171.44.43 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: I completely agree, this is nothing more than respecting the Wikipedia's terms.

I wrote a more complete article here, contesting the deletion of the Igorrr page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aeternus David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpolkiujhy (talkcontribs) 11:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Mpolkiujhy (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep:Igorrr is definitely a notable artist. Precursor in the electronic scene and a donor of fresh air in the metal music according to numerous reviews such as Les Inrocks, Trax, Rock 'a' Rolla, Side-Line, Sputnik, etc.

His "Chicken's Symphony" made really a buzz and it was diffused in Canal + and the Japanese TV NHK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D4ofrssoUQ&feature=youtu.be Canal+ : http://www.canalplus.fr/c-infos-documentaires/c-ms-l-oeil-de-links/pid7534-l-emission.html?vid=1199284 NHK Tv: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152612560643049&set=vb.241913148048&type=2&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagienna (talkcontribs) 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Bagienna (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete: Nope, not convinced. YouTube and Facebook aren't reliable sources, and a teensy indie label doesn't become a "major" indie label just because it has some artists whom someone thinks ought to have Wikipedia articles. I appreciate that the band has some fans, and I'm sure they'll do a bang up job of creating a fan site somewhere. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nha Trang Allons! 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep:It seems like they're using Facebook or YouTube to make it easier for us to check how popular the band is, but obviously, we can find the same informations on the official sites. NHK : [1] and Dour Festival : </ref>http://www.dourfestival.eu/artist/detail/Igorrr/</ref>.

I know about NHK as the biggest TV in Japan and Dour Festival as the most popular festival in all Europe (almost 200.000 people this last years when Igorrr was playing [2]). According to the post I see above, Igorrr was apparently interviewed by Canal+, this makes the Igorrr place in Wikipedia definitely relevant to me. 79.194.6.98 (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC) 79.194.6.98 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep:User Nha Trang wrote: 'a teensy indie label doesn't become a "major" indie label just because it has some artists whom someone thinks ought to have Wikipedia articles'. I was saying that this "teensy indie label" has tens of artists who already have their own Wikipedia pages, i.e. recognized as significants artists. Sorry if I did not make this clear in my first comment.

Also, I know that 'YouTube and Facebook aren't reliable sources', but the Facebook link I provided gives, in turn, links to tens of reviews and interviews of Igorrr, some of which you may think are notable. Finally, about the current sockpuppet investigation, I just want to mention that Aeternus, who filed this article for deletion, also launched the SPI when he saw three people coming here to defend Igorrr and Ad Noiseam. In fact, the head of Ad Noiseam posted something on Youtube about hiw the Ad Noiseam and Igorrr pages were filed for deletion, and some of us "fans" came here to defend them. The FB pos was not a call: we fans decided to give our opinion. 85.171.44.43 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) 85.171.44.43 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Vivaldi Partners Group[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a small consulting firm. The available sources consist of press releases and trivial mentions. I am unable to find independent sources that in cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: the CEO is Erich Joachimsthaler. There is a page here and on German WP of the CEO. I'm not sure if that matters, in terms of the notability of the company. I found very little to work with on Google search, google news, google books. Mostly just press releases, user generated content, and a few very brief mentions of the company, usually as an identifier in an interview of somebody working for the company. Probably can delete, but I will remain neutral for now.--Gaff (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree, notability not established, references are either primary or trivial mentions. Gaff and Ged UK both bring up the CEO, Erich Joachimsthaler, having an article, but that article has dubious notability as well, as I brought up on its Talk page. Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable consulting firm. Pax 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You Are Unstoppable[edit]

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

Not WP:NOTABLE and doesn't have WP:SOURCES. Mr. Deletionist (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 20 February 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) 05:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Obviously passes WP:NALBUMS and has multiple reliable sources. All added after the AfD was begun, true, but wow was this AfD made in terrible haste. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing to indicate that the song is well-known enough to have an article yet. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Conchita_Wurst#Singles (and nom may want to give some of the blue-links over there a tire-kick as well). Pax 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sahil Salathia[edit]

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

I put a prod but the creator removed it. He is a unotable actor with just one role so far Wgolf (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it is being called an autobiography, creator has identified himself on his userpage as "Jacob Isaac" that is certainly not the subject of the article under discussion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Anupmehra-Yeah how is this a autobiography is a good question. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is an autobiography because it was originally created by User:Salathiasahil, who recreated the article as "Mrjacobisaac" eight minutes after it was deleted the first time. Blackguard 06:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lol. Is the image a selfie, or will it be a copyright issue? MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:35, 26 February 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) 05:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Times of India thinks he is notable enough to write about, what does "only one role" have to do with it? If it was only one role in an Oscar-winning film, still delete? MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. Borderline. One RS, one event (role), this probably falls under WP:SINGLEEVENT. I'd suggest mergeing and redirecting to the movie, per WP:TOOSOON. We may likely restore his article in a while when he makes news again, but Wikipedia is not there to promote people who are not notable yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Bonelli Erede Pappalardo[edit]

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

I have prodded it under the following concern: "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 (companies) requirement". It was deprodded by User:Samuel J. Howard under the following rationale: "here are multiple reliable independent non-trivial sources in the legal press and in the Italian media". Well, the legal press mentions refer to one dedicated article in The Lawyer ([20], closed access so I cannot verify even from my university). There's an unformatted ref to Il Sole 24 Ore ([21]), through I don't speak Italian so I cannot judge its quality. Not sure what other reliable sources are there; half are from beplex.com - company's own website, and other half are annotated as "press room", i.e. promotional self-published press releases. I am not sure if - at best - two dedicated stories make this pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but I am open to further discussion (and preferably, more RS being presented). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The Wall Street Journal has called Bonelli Erede Pappalardo a "leading Italian law firm".[22]. An article in la Repubblica, a major Italian newspaper, calls the firm "probably the biggest law firm in Italy".[23] The article in The Lawyer cited in the article is free with registration [24] and confirms 100 Million Euros in revenue. There are other articles in The Lawyer [25]. Corriere della Sera, one of Italy's oldest newspapers, covers the firm [26] and runs an article about the firm from Dow Jones Newswires [27].
Let me cite another article from ALM Media's American Lawyer Daily that calls the firm "elite", "top-tier", "leading" and a "powerhouse".[28]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask @Piotrus: to be careful in his deletion of articles about companies. This and his deletion request for Mint.com do not show adherence to WP:BEFORE part D, which require that one look for additional sources before nominating an article for deletion. He extensively analyzes the sources cited in articles, but that is not sufficient. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:TNT. There's almost no useful content in the article, but there is a lot of WP:ADMASQy "...Bonelli enhanced its profitability wth several high profile lateral hires..." style writing.

Us Against the World (Coldplay song)[edit]

Us Against the World (Coldplay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Us Against the World (Coldplay song)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Song fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. It is not discussed independently in third party media and nor has any notable chart action that a separate article is needed. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect if Background, Composition and more reviews can be found and included. If not, then Delete. (I must stress that the only charting on one chart is not a valid reason for nominating to delete and is completely irrelevant. Chart and chart position, even if it's number 99 South Korea or 200 in the UK, is perfectly acceptable. Charting is charting).  — ₳aron 10:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect There is Mylo Xyloto, redirecting to studio album would be better because the song has been mentioned in some of the reliable references that have been added to the article. Delibzr (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ultimae Records[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Λeternus (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Billinge Football Club[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability. British football team playing at step 7 of the National League System (level 11 overall in British football). Speedy deletion (nominated by me) was declined and replaced with Proposed deletion, which was declined (without comment) by the article's author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi I can understand to a certain level that you think the club has no notability I would disagree however I understand your perspective. Would then also request that the other clubs with the Cheshire Association Football League are reviewed as we all have been in existence for 80 plus years and all play at the same level of the game with a similar level of credibility. We are Northern Cup champions 3 years running and have had one of our player play for England 6 aside competition at the last world Cup for a team of this level I don't know what else could improve are credibility  ? Kind regards Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofabooz (talkcontribs) 13:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The only other four clubs who field their first team in the Cheshire League and have an article have either played at a higher level (Garswood United in the North West Counties League) or have played in the FA Cup, Trophy or Vase (Knutsford, Rylands, Middlewich Town). WP:FOOTY guidelines are that a club should have done one of these in order to have an article, unfortunately Billinge haven't done either as far as I can see............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The other grounds on which a club can have an article is if it can be proven to meet WP:GNG by having been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources i.e. major news sites or equivalent. This means that the club itself must be the subject of the coverage and it must be covered in detail i.e. not just passing mentions, routine match results or lists of reports. Might that be the case.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Football Today[edit]

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

Non-notable.. fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:BCAST is the criteria for broadcast media, not for TV shows. The criteria for TV Shows is WP:TVSHOW which this show easily meets being aired on national cable TV channels, in multiple countries including Sportsnet World in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • You did read the part where it says "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience", didn't you? Those sources should be found first. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

C.h.u.n.k. 666[edit]

C.h.u.n.k. 666 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "C.h.u.n.k. 666" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Only local. Hard to find good sources. The main source of the article reads like a fan article read here. Someone rode about it here buddies from SCUL, which I also nominated for deletion for the same reasons. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 12:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This mutant bike gang meets GNG as the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. This Village Voice article has significant coverage of the New York chapter. I think the Portland Mercury feature also counts towards notability (I read it as snarky and sarcastic, but not a fan article per se). gobonobo + c 18:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Communicourt Ltd[edit]

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

Delete: This company / organization is not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment to nominator: how is the company not notable? Which guidelines does it not meet? Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Registered Intermediaries. Seems notable per James500 above, but coverage online is thin, with only two passing mentions in GNews, and one in GScholar. If more coverage can be found, then it can be split out again later to a separate article. Registered Intermediaries and Non-Registered Intermediary should probably also be merged, but that's a separate matter. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There are four results from BAILII, including judgements of the High Court, which are notable under criteria 2 of WP:CASES: [34]. There is, on Communicourt's website, a page which says it is a copy of a judgement delivered by the Recorder of Leeds, in which Communicourt is discussed. I am under the impression that transcripts of judgements can be purchased from the courts, so presumably this one can be verified with an official copy. James500 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We shouldn't be redirecting non-notable companies to other articles concerning topics the non-notable company focuses in (i.e., if the New York Times were non-notable, we wouldn't redirect it to Newspaper). Pax 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No policy or guideline supports that approach and there is no reason whatsoever to do that. In this case independent sources confirm that there only two private organisations providing intermediaries and both of them are correctly discussed in the article on intermediaries on the basis of those sources. If the NYT wasn't notable, we certainly would redirect it to a list of newspapers, because bibliography is within the scope of our project and deleting the redirect would break our citations and be harmful for other reasons examples of which are given here and here. Plus which, neither example meets any of the criteria for deletion. James500 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Seal-Bin Han[edit]

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

Questionable notability and significance, and I think there may be an attempt to protect the article with a sock/meat puppet - both Sinan.u.ozdemir (talk · contribs) and Wrecklessasian (talk · contribs) are very new accounts that seem to have a very vested interest in this particular article, so I'd be interested in observing there behavior here before moving to deciding whether or not to move this over to WP:SPI. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that this article does not meet the standards of notability and significant, then it is fair to remove it. However, I will assert that I am not associated with user Sinan and am willing to prove that in whatever way necessary. Wrecklessasian (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Firstly I would like to state that I am giving my concern as per Wikipedia guidelines. Secondly I found two notable links for the subject. Both are from The Huffington Post. More media links should be used to establish notability of the subject. If the subject fails the notability criteria then the article should surely be deleted.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hethershecim (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Looking at those sources only contributes to my notion that this article is enjoying some kind of circular support. The author of both articles is Jim Luce, and each article reads like an advertisement for his foundation. Furthermore, Seal-Bin Han's only notability appears to be thanks to Luce's 'mentorship' (as it is written in the article). Han's significance seems frankly questionable at best and I agree with TomStar81 that it seems like the article's original author has a mysteriously high interest in the article's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.83 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jim Luce. "A Young Global Leader at Johns Hopkins". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 21 February 2015. 
  2. ^ "World Youth Initiative: Tomorrow's Leaders, Solving Today's Issues". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 21 February 2015. 
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Plasma weapon[edit]

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

Basically, I asked for references on the article's talk page but none came.

The whole thing looks like a hoax, though it might just be something real inflated to the extreme, it is just hard to know. As I see it, there are two kinds of "plasma weapons" out there: stuff which relies on lasers, that are themselves created by plasma, which are well documented but not really "plasma weapons", and stuff from Star Wars with no serious evidence of existence ("PEP" or pulsed energy projectiles). I hence recommend to delete the thing - unless evidence appears now, it just fails WP:V. Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I'll have a pole around and see if it's main claim of plasma weapons research at Boeing is supported by anything or just someone daydreaming Plasma weapon (fiction) into real life. There's a couple of other technologies mentioned that are more solid and have cites but don't really seem to be "Plasma weapons" as such. Artw (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Pulsed energy projectile has it's own page and might make a good redirect target, however that page has issues of it's own. Artw (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Boeing considers feasibility of plasma-based weapons could be a source, however it's pretty speculative and it's author is Nick Cook, who later went on to write about how the US was basing it's defence research on captured Nazi UFO technology. Artw (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There have been serious attempts such as the Shiva Star and we have related technologies such as the H-bomb and plasma torch. It would be silly to have just the title plasma weapon (fiction) without having this one as a high-level summary to point the reader in appropriate directions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You might be on to something if you can find some solid cites for MARAUDER, which is linked off of Shiva Star. Artw (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by nominator (partly in answer to Andrew D.): the page plasma weapon (fiction) would need to be taken care of if this AfD ends up deleting plasma weapon, but it should bear no weight on the decision at hand. If Andrew D.'s point is that the page should be kept, but filled with entirely different content imported mostly from the "(fiction)" page, I think deletion and recreation is the cleanest way to do it, unless some guideline I ignore states otherwise.

H-bomb is only loosely related, as is every stuff from physics that involves plasma, as far as I can tell - as I wrote, everything that involves plasma is not a "plasma weapon". The plasma torch is not a weapon.

The "serious attempts" such as MARAUDER are the ones that could make it a real article, but I am not sure this was intended to be a weapon. The article does not claim so although it somewhat implies it, and the sources do not say so. I am ready to believe there has been funding into plasma weapons, but if such research failed to produce a working prototype, or that such information is unavailable because it is classified and nothing leaked, it does not seem to deserve an article.Tigraan (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Gebru[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I disagree, there is a "credible claim of significance" ("Samuel has been recognized as a young leader in Ethiopia and the United States."). Whether it is true and well-sourced is another matter entirely. The fate of that article is probably linked to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethiopian_Global_Initiative, even if notability is not inherited. Tigraan (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Subject received a good bit of coverage for his post Boston Marathon bombing activities. By itself that wouldn't warrant notability, but the subject has contributed regularly to AFP stories and coverage such as [35] both suggests notability and provides enough biographical material to warrant an article. All-in-all I would say the subject is minorly notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pinging @MatthewVanitas: who accepted this article at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - To clarify, Speedy Keep if the deletion rationale is taken at face value, as there are many claims to significance in the article. Keep if we assume the deletion rationale concerns notability. I'm actually on the edge of weak keep and regular keep, but regardless, I think the sourcing as it is, without even looking for more, gets by WP:BIO. The article needs some serious editing, though, as while there are enough good sources for notability purposes, many of these sources are primary/poor. I went through and combined repeated refs into named refs to better assess the article, but didn't make any real revisions to the article. I will also be !voting for a selective merge to this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopian Global Initiative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Kalika Yap[edit]

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

Claimed to a advertisement article, but there are enough pieces in the page that I think a stub could be created if the article was judged to have sufficient nobility, about which I am still on the fence. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability confirmed[edit]

In terms of meeting notability, Kalika Yap has just been featured as part of global fashion brand BCBG's New Guard campaign featuring "the county's most interesting women." Please see https://vimeo.com/120082676 and http://www.bcbg.com/Online-Magazine-February-2015/magazine-2015-02,default,pg.html (pages 30-35) out this month as reference. Kalika is featured along with Kiva founder Jessica Jackley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Jackley), TechCrunch co-editor Alexia Tsotsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexia_Tsotsis), and CBS journalist Alison Harmelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Harmelin). Please consider removing the delete tag. Siamsens (Talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I added more notability for Kalika Yap to the entry. She was a guest on MSNBC. --> In November 2014, Yap was featured as a business expert on the MSNBC show "Your Business" along with Larry Broughton, the CEO of Broughton Hotels, where she answered viewer questions about growing their small business through acquisitions and whether or not the size of your office space really matters. Rex Freiberger (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sixty-seven Articles[edit]

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

Unsourced translation of his "Auslegung und Begründung der Thesen oder Artikel, " I don't think the current standards at Wikitext would permit it there, unless someone can find the source. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete – As copied from a website that lacks an explicit copyright release statement.
The website is the Christian History website [36] cited as the source in the article. It says this:
The Sixty—Seven Articles of Ulrich Zwingli;” from the Selected Works of Huldrich Zwingli (1484—1531), the Reformer of German Switzerland; translated for the First Time from the Originals, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1901). Introduced and Edited by Dan Graves.
There are two editions of the translation by Samuel Macauley Jackson – the original 1901 edition and a 1972 edition, both from the University of Pennsylvania. In both the copyright to the text is 1901, so that part is public domain (copyright expired). But Dan Graves is an editor at the Christian History website, and I couldn't find a copyright release, so the status of his editing of the text is unclear.
Meanwhile, Wikisource apparently would prefer to have a scan of the 1901 text along with the data so that they can verify it. In some cases they will accept data from a source like Project Gutenberg. But it has to be public domain. Since the status of the contribution by Graves is unclear, it looks to me like it doesn't qualify. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Send to WP:CP: Here is a source of the original text scanned by the Online Library of Liberty, indicating that the original text is in Public Domain: [37]. As for the article, WP:SCV has this currently due to the copyvio from here. Copyvio report. Also, here is the difference between the original text and the edited version [38], it's mostly edits of "ye olde speak" to more modern text. I believe this should be sent to WP:CP. Tek022 | Comments? 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Page images of the 1901 edition (in the public domain) are at the Online Library of Liberty at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1682 as a "Facsimile PDF" under the heading Edition Used. The Sixty-seven Articles are set out on pages 111-117 of the Facsimile PDF and I have checked the text of the Wikipedia article and edited it to ensure that it is in accordance with the facsimile pages. Therefore there is no issue with copyright regarding this article. Also see the references cited by me in the article. The text of the entire book is available in several formats, from the same place that I accessed the PDF. I am not into submitting stuff to Wikisource but it seems to me that the page images and the OCRd text would be good candidates for Wikisource. P.S. I notice that the page images are also at Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/selectedworksofh00zwin. Collywolly (talk)
  • Delete - or rather, redirect. I can't see any copyright problem here, the text was published in the United States before 1923, so is in the public domain (I haven't checked that it is word-for-word the same, taking User:Collywolly's word for that). Or am I missing something?
Nor can I see any conceivable reason to host this on Wikipedia. Apart from the original text, there's one sentence there. Better redirect to Huldrych Zwingli, expand it there, split it off if it becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunera[edit]

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

Not notable, at least not yet. The coverage is a blend of purely local coverage, which tends to be indiscriminate, press releases, and routine announcements. Typical of the genre. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: Company is notable within field of cyber security. Experts are frequently cited on the topic of cyber security (see Wired as an example). Notable employees include Chris Sullo, co-creator of the Nikto Web Scanner. Frequently keynote speakers at industry conferences in the hacking/cyber security industry (RVAsec and DefCon as examples). Subject meets all requirements of Wikipedia's Notability guideline (coverage is significant, reliable, independent, etc.), therefore I recommend keeping. Disclosure: Article's creator.Cheetahcasey (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates[edit]

List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Can we really keep this unsourced list? Is it worth sourcing? List of potentially habitable exoplanets is an appropriate list article (though it is marked as needing updating) , but this is very different. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not unsourced. If you go to: http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data and scroll down you'll see a simular table of this information. I agree it does need updating, but it can be useful for including unconfirmed planets so that we can create pages for them and when they get confirmed then move them onto the List of potentially habitable exoplanets. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy/projectify? It's hard to imagine a list of unconfirmed observations is a viable encyclopedia article, but if an individual user or a wikiproject wants it to keep track of these observations and prepare for confirmation then that sounds reasonable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (uninitiated) Refocus as Kepler candidate, which is not yet an article or a redirect now, so expanding beyond the list to talk about that concept is also possible. Though from what I see at List of potentially habitable exoplanets, it is sortable by Status and hence easy to group Kepler candidates together, making a pure list of Kepler candidates duplicative. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Thure Janson[edit]

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

Promotional article created by COI editor on non-notable, obscure Swedish person. Coretheapple (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Hästens - which seems to be the only thing why PTJ could remotely be notable; otherwise, delete. Tigraan (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Delete (see below). I resent the nominator's implication that being Swedish detracts even further from the (non-existent) notability of an obscure person! But redirecting to Hästens seems the obvious thing to do. Possibly, on a good day, we might "merge" in his vital dates (1864-1926) to where he's mentioned in the Hästens article. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Sorry, I got mixed up between the generations: there's an article about the actual founder of the company, Pehr Adolf Janson (or there was; not any longer, because I have just redirected it to Hästens) and there's also this article about Per Thure Janson, his descendant. Please delete Per Thure, it doesn't rate a redirect. Per Thure is only parenthetically mentioned in Hästens as being the father of "David" — wait, do we have an article about David? No. Can't think why not. These attempts to inflate the Hästens company into a family of articles are quite pathetic. (I've removed Per Thure from the Hästens article.) Bishonen | talk 00:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I was just identifying the chap. I can delete or strike out "Swedish" if you think it wise. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

NEM - New Economy Movement[edit]

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

Non notable. Only coverage of the subject by a reliable source independent of the subject (per GNG) is VICE motherboard, all other sources are not reliable, or not independent. The Yahoo Finance reference is paid press release. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - the only reliable source may be VICE motherboard, but it discusses the subject at length, so in my view it is enough to pass WP:ORG. Now, one could discuss whether VICE is really a sufficient proof of notability... Tigraan (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - it has a 'reliable' source, ie the VICE article.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Is a singular reliable source sufficient for notability? I was under the impression that an article must be covered by multiple reliable sources. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - reliable source is provided, and WP:SIGCOV doesn't explicitly require more than one. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources...", so yes, WP:SIGCOV, does explicitly require more than one. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And it also notes: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". --ZimZalaBim talk 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Gridcoin[edit]

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

Non-notable, only references are from cryptocurrency sites that does not pass WP:RS. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because you may not be interested in this cryptocurrency does not mean that it is not notable. This is unsubstantiated. Also I am very confident that just because some sources may be shaky that does not mean "that it will be impossible for the article to be attributed to reliable sources". Following this reasoning we should delete all the articles in [[39]]. "Publications in this part of the world tend to be also recited by the same part." Well I don't quite follow what you mean with this. What world are you talking about exactly? Obviously pages dealing with this subject are (highly) technical but that should be no reason to delete the article. Regarding circular referencing of wiki content on 3rd party sites as wiki sources, I did not find any. I am going to be bold and remove the deletion consideration and just put up a source banner. AlwaysUnite (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has policies for inclusion, which you may read at WP:N. Part of that means coverage by reliable third party sources. Your comment that my claim is 'unsubstantiated' is strange, considering as it is not up to me to prove a negative. I've searched for reliable sources that cover this cryptocurrency, and have not found any. So what am I talking about? The fact that this topic has not received any coverage from any WP:RS, and hence should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG. Your removal of the AFD manner on the article isn't appropriate and I have re-added it. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Does bitcoin magazine qualify as RS? It's used quite a lot on Wiki. -- 104.229.168.62 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

2016 mid-year rugby union internationals[edit]

2016 mid-year rugby union internationals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2016 mid-year rugby union internationals" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Unsourced article about future rugby matches. I am unable to find any independent sources with to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 00:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There She Walks[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Start Here (Maddie & Tae album)[edit]

Start Here (Maddie & Tae album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Start Here (Maddie & Tae album)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Stub article about an album that may be released in 3 months, does not meet the guideline for albums under WP:NSONGS or general notability WP:GNG Walkabout14 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walkabout14 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Eric Ronald Inglis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Nothing notable in here except that he recorded an oral history Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Chaabou[edit]

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

The subject may not be fictional, AFAIK, but it fails WP:GNG. You might want to see the discussion on Talk:Chaabou. The PROD tag was removed by DGG. Google books do turn up a few mentions, I can't ascertain if they warrant an article for the subject. Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
some of the problems will be clearer from an earlier version. Needless to say, removing this content, if it could indeed be documented, would be a violation of NPOV. (it's in any case not a slur on Islam, but an indication of the ignorant bigotry of the early medieval author) DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge. I have rewritten the article to accord with the two sources I could find discussing "Chaabou"/"Kaabu". As far as I can tell, the only source for the existence of this deity is Epiphanius of Salamis, who likely confused a reference to stone blocks used to represent Dusares or his mother with the proper name of a goddess. This misunderstanding is too minor for its own article, so we should merge it to Dusares.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

UFOs Declassified[edit]

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

Article about a new television series. There seems to be only one independent source that covers the subject in detail (Toronto Star. Another source merely mentions the show in passing. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. - MrX 13:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network. We do not have any further criteria to distinguish notable nationally-aired television series from non-notable nationally-aired television series; once the condition of being sourceable as airing on a national television network has been satisfied — which it has been here, with a Toronto Star article confirming that the show airs on History already present in the article — the series is automatically an eligible topic for a Wikipedia article, and the only remaining recourse is to flag it for remaining maintenance issues such as needing further referencing improvement. Keep and flag for {{refimprove}}. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree. An essay written by a few editors should never trump a community endorsed guideline. At best, it can help to give examples of how to identify subjects that are likely notable, but we should still defer to WP:GNG. Of course you are welcome to propose that we elevate WP:NMEDIA to a guideline, but until that happens, a program that has not been noted by at least a few reliable sources is only worth a few lines in another article such as History (Canada).- MrX 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • What community-endorsed guideline is WP:NMEDIA contradicting? GNG doesn't trump subject-specific inclusion standards either — if a topic objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion test, then it's still includable whether the article is already in a GNG-satisfying state or not. For instance, if a politician who didn't already have an article gets elected to a state, provincial or federal legislature which puts them over WP:NPOL, then the article is automatically creatable, and must be kept, as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they've been declared elected — while of course we still want additional sourcing, and the article can be tagged accordingly, the fact that it doesn't already contain enough sourcing to satisfy GNG does not make it deletable, because the subject-specific test has rendered them automatically includable. If an actor who didn't already have an article wins a film or television award that puts them over WP:NACTOR, then a new article is creatable, and must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which verifies that they won the award — it does not become deletable just because the creator didn't put more effort into sourcing it over GNG right off the top. And on and so forth. GNG exists as a corollary to subject-specific inclusion tests, not as a trump card that invalidates or undermines them — a topic can get into Wikipedia by satisfying either GNG or a subject-specific inclusion rule, and does not necessarily have to simultaneously pass both tests. Sure, the ideal "good-to-FA quality" state for any article would be that it passed both tests, but the question of basic includability requires only one of the two tests to be passed — GNG is not an extra condition that an article still has to satisfy to become keepable even if it's already satisfied another keepability test. Yes, this still needs additional sourcing — but the fact that it doesn't already have more than this doesn't make it deletable if it's satisfied a subject-specific inclusion rule, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and new sourcing can always be added at any time. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)The first paragraph of the Programming section is an assertion without evidence of wide consensus, thus it's at odds with WP:GNG. However, the second paragraph brings it back into line with GNG by referring to the presence or absence of reliable sources. Your declaration that "All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network." does contradict the expectation that notability is demonstrated by substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, our bedrock test for notability. If this six-week-old program is actually notable, then it should not be difficult to find sources. Failing that, it should not have an article, because the article would consist of little more than plot summaries and air dates.- MrX 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
        • You seem to claim that there is such a thing as "a subject-specific inclusion rule" and I am claiming that there is not. An essay simply does not accomplish that. GNG dovetails into WP:V, which is policy. Anyway, it seems we have very different interpretations of this, so it's probable not helpful to continue filling this page with debate, and I think we have both made our points. I suggest that this discussion should be taken up on WT:N to get wider input.- MrX 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Failing a particular inclusion criteria, like WP:GNG is not a cause for deletion. I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat that this should be included per WP:NMEDIA. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree, it meets WP:NMEDIA and that should warrant inclusion. I've also added two sources but it really could do with more. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Miss Intercontinental 2015[edit]

Miss Intercontinental 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Miss Intercontinental 2015" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Given that the rest of the Miss International articles have all been deleted, this one should be too. All sources are WP:PRIMARY, with zero references to support notability of the pageant itself. Cannot see sufficient international coverage to show that this international pageant passes notability requirements, as per the previous Miss Intercontinental AFDs. Speedy deletion G4 was declined by an adminstrator. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • DELETE Really don't see why this couldn't have been speedied given the history of AFDs for related articles. Mabalu (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Miss Intercontinental is definitely notable, see [40]. Quite possibly it wasn't when it was deleted in 2009, but it is now. I will probably restart the article this week. Obviously, as long as there is no general article, there shouldn't be a year one, and quite likely even after there is a generally article, year ones will not be needed/justifable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

HonorSociety.org[edit]

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

While I don't have access to the deleted version to check if the content is exactly the same, this new article shows no signs of conquering the notability flaws that got it deleted in the previous Articles For Deletion discussion. Still sourced vastly to first-party references, other references are not indicators of notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Other sources referencing this page are universities such as Eastern Michigan University, American Red Cross, and organizations with notable wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.1.217 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The Red Cross page is merely a page set up to create a branded fundraising effort to get money for the Red Cross. No indication of notability. The EMU page is a press release, which is not an indication of notability. The Better Business Bureau listing is a database. The iReach and PRWeb pages are press releases. The NCHC page is just a list of member institutions, and all that means is that they paid $600 dues. The "Dream Careers" and "Think Impact" pages are just the listing of a discount for club members. And as noted in the last deletion, the MBAcrunch page is an obscure blog that did nothing but promote HonorSociety.org that year. None of these indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The type of notability discussed is scarce in this segment category. Look at the references of Golden Key International Honour Society or National Society of Collegiate Scholars. Virtually all of their articles are directly firsthand onsite references. For that matter, look at any Honor Society wikipedia and you will see much less large-scale notability. The fact of the matter is that the organizations are in themselves notable by virtue of their scope, affiliations, and membership. They are not actively noted in third-party resources however, generally because they are not actively news-worthy. This organization is notable to its constituency and has active member base as can be seen by their 1 million followers on Facebook, or active YouTube and Instagram followers. While the page, and segment category in general needs improvement I think it is clear they all deserve a wikipedia entry to be expanded on by the community. Further, and further exacerbating the issue of notability, is that for borderline notable entities not having a Wikipedia page limits further notability by third party sources. It's not a clear cut solution, but the page has enough weight to stand on its on legs and be expanded on. Notability is enough currently IMO, but will be expanded and built upon by allowing a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.244.70 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Facebook "like" counts are useless, as likes can be purchased. We have guidelines on notability of organizations at WP:NORG; this is failing them. I can understand that the organization wants to promote itself; I see no reason that Wikipedia should be party to that. If all we're doing is reconveying the information that's on their website, then this page is unneeded, as people can find the information they seek on their website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Notability isn't established on Wikipedia by page views, FB likes or stuff like that. It's established by being covered in significant detail by multiple reliable, published, third-party sources, and the anon IPs' arguments seem to boil down to ITSIMPORTANT. "They are not actively noted in third-party resources however, generally because they are not actively news-worthy" is an IP's statement, and that says it right there: since this outfit is not newsworthy, it doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Happily, the outfit can promote itself over its own website. Nha Trang Allons! 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify how Golden Key International Honour Society or National Society of Collegiate Scholars is considered more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.54.13 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for discussing the notability of those subjects and their viability as Wikipedia articles. If you would like to see those deleted, you are free to nominate them for deletion. If your goal is to suggest that this article should not be deleted because those other have not yet been deleted, please realize that that is on our list of "arguments to avoid during deletion discussions", for reasons you'll see here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:NORG: Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

In terms of national or international scope, the organization has conferences in Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles this year. In terms of coverage by multiple sources, the article is sited by Eastern Michigan University (not a press release) and NCHC (national recognizing body for honors programs) and the American Red Cross (partnerships are vetted and notable).

Looking at these claims:
  • The EMU piece is indeed a press release. That's why its in the "news releases" section of their website, why it has contact information in the piece. Even the URL tells you that it's a release.
  • The NCHC listing is neither significant - all it is is a mentioning of the name - nor is it independent; HonorSociety.org appears to have paid $600 to be on that list.
  • The Red Cross page is not significant (all it says about the organization is that it's trying to raise money for the Red Cross), and it is far from independent - the page exists based on the belief that the group will funnel money to the Red Cross, and the page represents itself as actually being HonorSociety.org's website (referring to itself as "the HonorSociety.org website for the American Red Cross.")
So we' re still left looking for those sources that would indicate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

More sources added, including United States Federally Registered Trademark of HonorSociety.org, and third-party neutral posts from Baruch College, and North Carolina Central University.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jevans24 (talkcontribs) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted on our general notability guidelines, "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." The added references are:
  • Crunchbase - a user-edited database, and thus no indication of notability.
  • the trademark listing at Justia is also a database, and thus not an indication of notability
  • CollegeBudget - a partner with Honorsociety,org, as noted on the page, so not independent
  • Doctors Without Borders - another page just giving a place for members to give the source money, so not independent
  • The same six-sentence blog post on BaruchHonors and NCCU is about as insignificant as one can get - a teeny item aimed at a very local audience (the student bodies) denying school involvement with some emails.
So, no, no notability found yet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's very strict and narrow to say no notability. This page has more notability on it than virtually any honor society, and currently possesses the scope to be a valuable article. Instead of deleting the page, I would suggest adding the "Needs more sources" and "Written like an advertisement" tags and let the page stand. This will allow the community an opportunity to add neutral input, link to notable topics, and enhance the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jevans24 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm sure you'd like to see us keep the ad page you put up for a group that - well, have you reviewed WP:COI to see if you have a conflict of interest regarding this page? But an honor society can have the sort of references that establish notability, like this honor society's article has this lengthy Wall Street Journal piece on the group as a source. That's quite a bit different than the sort of thing you've been pointing to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ITU TV[edit]

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

I am unable to find sources that establish notabilty, probably fails WP:GNG. Some sources: 1 2 3 Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. BenLinus1214talk 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was Turkey's first, and for many years only, television broadcaster. As the nominator notes, sources exist (and I've added one to the article). As such, it is presumptively notable per WP:BROADCAST, and the content is essential to the subject of Turkish television history. I could see an argument for merging this content into Television in Turkey (where ITU TV is already mentioned, but more could be said) but deletion is not the right solution here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BROADCAST. –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Seanbaby[edit]

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

Non-notable writer/personality; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR / WP:ENT. Previous 2006 AFD is amusing to read- editors (really, fans) claimed notability due to his minor writing/TV appearances, not citing significant coverage or policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:26, 26 February 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) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seanbaby is (or, at least, was) one of the more popular Internet-based comedy writers. For example, in this interview, Patton Oswalt cites Seanbaby as one of his favorite writers. His video game Calculords got significant coverage, according to a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. But I don't see too much for him personally in a cursory search for sources. I'll do more searches later. It would surprise me if he were non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wow, the nom was right: what a bullshit lot of Keeps in the last AfD, which threw up a whole lot of "This guy is so important on the interwebz!!!" without bothering with so much as one shred of proof of it. And that's the issue here. I'm seeing a number of sources quoting or citing him, but not a single one that discusses him, and as the relevant guidelines explicitly state, a quote from a subject can't be used to support the notability of the subject. Come up with some interviews or articles in reliable sources about Seanbaby, and I'm happy to change my mind. Nha Trang Allons! 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, I've got these two: [41] and [42]. Not sure how good they are. I guess I'll look more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pre-2009 AFD, and Wikipedia in general, was rather different. The discussions were a lot less in-depth, as witnessed in the first nom. Anyways, similar to NRP above, I also find it somewhat hard to believe he's not-notable, with the numerous mainstream publications he's written for. It may be harder to justify, since his writing is so over-the-top and satirical, but he may satisfy something like WP:JOURNALIST or something too... Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • As it stands, the sources provided by NinjaRobotPirate hardly contain the appropriate significant coverage required to keep this standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Crave Online would be a reliable source, but doesn't really discuss him in much detail. Not sure about the "Mancave" source. I'll see if I can dig up anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here's some source I've found. They're not the most detailed, but they do discuss him, and what he's known for (Writing for Electronic Gaming Monthly, Cracked.com, making video games, etc.)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

David Archuleta (kickboxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. The references are either fight announcements or results, which is routine sports coverage that is insufficient for meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:KICK. No significant coverage and no outstanding results.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yilin Zhong[edit]

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

Not sure if she passes WP:BIO, article has a promotional tone, and is difficult to understand. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. Also unconvinced she is notable. Needs more than lots of Amazon page ranks which can be temporary and generally are unverifiable. Could just be the lack of English language coverage though, there seems a lot more in Chinese which I’m ill equipped to evaluate.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I tried to convince the author to use AfC, but I guess they ignored that advice and moved it back to mainspace... The article was speedy deleted at Yilin Zhong previously, but I feel the AfD should run its course now. The article, while promotional, really doesn't rise to the G11 level. No comment on notability at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

- As I talked to ThaddeusB I am totally confused here. I am not a wiki person and really cannot understand what you guys are talking about. As I said, if any parts of this article is wrong, please just delete them or revise it. I have no idea how to meet your requirements so please just change it as you like. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptynow (talkcontribs) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. I couldn't find significant coverage in Chinese sources. ([43][44]) These two sources ([45][46]) in the article were written by her, not about her.--Antigng (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

- Hi Antigng, thanks for your search effort. the first search was with the traditional Chinese words and this language was not used in mainland China so there is nothing by that search. But it looks like that if someone published 10 books but cannot find an interview online, then he is not existed on wiki. e.g. the CCTV (China's Central TV Station) interview for her first book was broadcasting in 1996 when China has no internet yet, so we cannot find it by google at all. So were those books published before 2000 when Amazon launched in China and then there was no source online as well. I don't know what to say now. Emptynow (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails the GNG, pure and simple--- whether sources might exist doesn't matter, it's whether it's provable that they do. I recommend to Emptynow that if he doesn't know what Wikipedia requires for creating an article, reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR is a good way to start. Nha Trang Allons! 20:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

-Ok, you guys pushed me spending five hours today to find those very limited online sources from 2000 in Chinese website. Done. and exhausted. I think this is the end of my contribution to this article no matter what happens next. Thank you guys. Good night. Emptynow (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - the recently added Chinese language sources appear to be sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

BitLord[edit]

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

A poorly sourced, vaguely spammy, article about a dubious piece of software. The article has been the subject of bickering regrading its factual accuracy and neutrality since it was created, no doubt because of the poor sourcing. I have looked for sources and found nothing other than download sites, blogs, and forum posts. Reyk YO! 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect (and salt) to Comparison of BitTorrent tracker software. Or merge into BitComet in a new "Clones" section. I would say that BitLord is notable within the community of dedicated torrenters as being an ad-supported "leech" fork of BitComet (whose only users are torrenting noobs who don't know any better), but that there is not independent notability outside that community. (BitComet and BitLord IPs are routinely blacklisted by other torrent peers, and very few people use it for long.) Article is WP:ADMASQ garbage at present. Pax 09:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Possibly unfree files[edit]

March 6[edit]

Files for deletion[edit]

March 6[edit]

File:Miu Kawasaki - .hack Another Birth 1 Infection.jpeg[edit]

File:Miu Kawasaki - .hack Another Birth 1 Infection.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Werieth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned. Page where this was used has been redirected due to notability issues. Hence, no longer needed. KirtZJ (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Zero2003.jpg[edit]

File:Zero2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kazu-kun (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned. Page where this was used has been redirected due to notability issues. Hence, no longer needed. KirtZJ (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sora-zero2.jpg[edit]

File:Sora-zero2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kazu-kun (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned. Page where this was used has been redirected due to notability issues. Hence, no longer needed. KirtZJ (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

March 6[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Estonian freedom fighters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename due to subjective wording, i.e. "freedom fighters". Quis separabit? 04:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note/comment. This is sort of an "award" category, not a purely descriptive one: the definition is "people who have been formally recognised by the Estonian state, via an award such as the Order of the Cross of the Eagle, as a 'Freedom fighter'." Absent some sort of explanatory article, I think it should probably be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Red and white flags[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure about this, but I'd like to see a discussion on it. This is the only category I can find that categorizes flags by specific colours. We do have categories that group them by other design features: Category:Flags by design. I'm not sure that specific colour is a way we want to divide flags, so I lean towards deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Redirects[edit]

March 6[edit]

The Frisky[edit]

Not mentioned at target (which is apparently the publisher) and not likely a notable website. Either way, the redirect should be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Windows 8.2[edit]

This formerly existed as a redirect to Windows 8.1, I haven't ever heard about this product apart from previously encountering the redirect. - TheChampionMan1234 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep this was the name used about the next version of Windows, when the start button was to be fully restored, in reports about the next version of Windows. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Closet You'll Love It![edit]

Error in creation. No pages link to this, or are likely to. — Confession0791 talk 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as {{R from modification}}. Redirects exist partly to aid searching, not solely to aid linking. This is a legitimate search term. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo 512[edit]

Something to do with bits. Does not warrant a redirect. Also nominated for the same reason:

  • Delete - likewise I imagine something to do with processing bits. NES was 8-bit, Super NES 16-bit, and Nintendo 64 64-bit, but Wii and Wii U did not likewise add bits to their processing technology (in fact both are 32-bit), and this is not a versioning system. Ivanvector (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

TIP Trailer Services[edit]

TIPTS is no longer part of GEES, see website. Since there is no standalone article, the redirect is incorrect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

March 6[edit]

Template:Infobox Brazilian ministry[edit]

Template:Infobox Brazilian ministry (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Redundant to {{Infobox government agency}}, except for {{{operational_centre}}} and {{{command_structure}}}. When used in ministry articles, {{{command_structure}}} invariably contains a link to the Cabinet of Brazil, and can probably be omitted. Otherwise, it maps to {{{parent_agency}}}. {{{operational_centre}}} is not used in any article. Alakzi (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK Statutory Instrument[edit]

Template:Infobox UK Statutory Instrument (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)
Template:Infobox UK legislation (edit · talk · history · links · logs · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox UK Statutory Instrument with Template:Infobox UK legislation.
A statutory instrument is a type of secondary legislation. Alakzi (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#2015-03-06

Deletion review[edit]

6 March 2015[edit]