Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 April	23 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Djurgårdens IF. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberget 4A

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

This was created, deleted under WP:G11, and the deletion contested at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_15. Per the DRV, I'm listing this here as an administrative action to get a clear consensus on whether the article should be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article was speedy deleted with reference to WP:G11, which says articles should not be promotion. The user who speedy deleted it has not been able to explain, what in the article it was which he deemed to be promotion. The article is not written for promotional purposes. Bandy boy (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Djurgårdens IF. The beer isn't independently notable. Most of the sources are to sites linked to the sports club; the Aftonbladet article is an independent source about brewing, but doesn't actually mention the beer by name. There are a few other references on blogs, directories of beers, etc, but they don't meet WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aftonbladet is the largest newspaper in Sweden and is mentioning the beer by its former name, which was still the name it had by then. Bandy boy (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. I am leaning towards merge but it definitely does not meet the WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in independent sources so at the very least it should be merged. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aftonbladet is the largest newspaper in Sweden and is an independent source. Bandy boy (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Djurgårdens IF - Not notable for a standalone article & Fails GNG, I couldn't care about Aftonbladet before I'm met with the same reply!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. Not an individually notable product. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by any reasonable standards. The beer is likely a rebadge of an existing beer, as is standard in these promotional cases. Beers named after sports clubs or even players are common, and while supporters of such clubs may be excited to have a beer named after their club or favourite, it is simply a marketing exercise to get the supporters to buy the beer, and is not in itself notable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't base a delete vote on what might be "likely". Pågen Grip (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bull's Blood (hoax)

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

Non-notable hoax. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even though this AFD page has "(3rd nomination)" in the title, this is actually the 4th discussion for this subject. Calathan (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significance, let alone WP:N notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confirmed as a hoax perpetrated by User:ColonelHenry. W C M_email 06:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax created on purpose by a now banned user who admitted that it was a hoax in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article itself is now not a hoax. See WP:HOAX, section "Hoaxes, versus articles about hoaxes": as it stands now, the article provides a neutral, properly sourced description of a hoax. We should treat this like any other article about a real-life incident, so the only real reason to delete is that the real-life incident isn't notable, since it doesn't appear to have any secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's what I was trying to say in my nomination. It is a documented hoax, but a non-notable one. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all entries. I did a search and ultimately the coverage here is fairly non-notable. The problem here is that even when it was believed to be a real thing, it really didn't get much coverage. After it became known as a hoax? That got zero attention. So here's the problem: the coverage it did get when it was believed to be real is kind of unreliable because it sort of shows that none of the papers did anything beyond saying "hey, here's a secret society!" and not really checking into it that much. A lot of the coverage stems from one incident of vandalism. Since we can obviously no longer redirect to Rutgers, we have to look at this on its own notability... which is lacking. We should probably salt all of the entries to prevent re-creation in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A hoax about a hoax? Well, that's something. (Also non-notable.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe of local interest, but not notable enough to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A previous version (histmerged together) was copied to Talk:Rutgers University student organizations#Content for merge after WP:Articles for deletion/Order of the Bull's Blood, February 2009. If this article is deleted, that copy should be blanked and revision deleted (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material). Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for revision deletion. I've simply blanked it. — Scott • talk 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for blanking it. I plan to tag the 5 affected revisions with {{copyvio-revdel}} to be processed normally, which may be a decline. Revision deletion is used more readily than the old WP:Selective deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. "Blatant copyright violations" applies to things far more serious than a small unattributed copy between articles, especially when the text has been deleted in both locations as a hoax. When addressing requests for revdel due to copyright violations I weigh up the size, duration, and visibility of the infringement - this is just too minor. — Scott • talk 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wovenwar

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

not my field, but I do not see how anything in this article indicates the band is notable. Their total work at this point is one youtube single. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band has already received attention from Loudwire ([1], [2]), Exclaim! ([3], [4]), Blabbermouth ([5]), Metal Hammer ([6], [7], [8]), MetalSucks ([9]) and Revolver Mag ([10]). Their connection with As I Lay Dying, and their signing to Metal Blade Records means that this band will generate a lot of media attention with very little music. Moswento ^talky 10:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should not be removed. This group was formed from two already famous bands. As it was suggested above, it has already received attention from rock and metal music press. Their fan base on Facebook is growing every singe day, as for 24 April their official page counts roughly 20 thousands fans from all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.30.29 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG. Whether they amount to much is still to be seen but no reason to remove. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources listed above need to be integrated into the article, but otherwise, definitely keep.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ymblanter (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCLR 2016 Wiki Version

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

This "article" is simply the full text of the proposed bill. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Either it is a copyvio or it fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY (in which case it might be more suitable for wikisource if it's been legitimately published and licensed freely, which isn't a given despite the unsourced licensing section at the end) --Ahecht (TALK[reply]
PAGE) 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete- It's basically the full text of a bill that hasn't even been passed yet (it happens to be about the legalization of pot, apparently). Wikipedia isn't a giant repository of political documents.

Edit: It's been deleted before as a copyvio, something to take into consideration.

Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy delete as a copyvio. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and promotional. STATic message me! 03:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems the license under which this is (re) released after being deleted for copyvio is compatible with CC by SA and the GFDL. However as I explained to the author in my talk page, this is out of scope for the project. If anything it belongs in WikiSource. Beyond that, it's a "dump" of a raw document, and serves as advocacy for the proposed legislation, which is also inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCLR

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

There's no indication of notability and no references, and the entire article is written in an unencyclopedic tone. A quick Google search does bring up a few results, but I don't see anything to sufficiently indicate notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire article is copied and pasted from the various sub-pages of http://www.marijuanacontrollegalizationrevenueact.com/what/ --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MCLR_2016_Wiki_Version --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not Delete: We are new to wikipedia. MCLR 2014 was an attempt to get adult use marijuana on the California Ballot. We had significant press coverage, but could not raise enough money for the 2014 ballot. We are moving forward with a 2016 initiative, and would like to document this on wikipedia. Thank you for your hard work to keep wikipedia accurate.--Morepot (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soap box. If there is extensive non-trivial media coverage then it should be used to present a neutral article. I couldn't find any reliable sources that establish the notability of the proposed bill. Not having notability doesn't mean that the proposed ballot initiative doesn't have merit, just that it's probably WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article.--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by saying "we" you are implying that you have a conflict of interest ~~and~~or that you may be using a shared account. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Volunteer Author: I believe "we" was intended to include all contributors and future contributors or editors, once people in the community have been told about this wikipedia page...I hope to see many more edits and contributors. I have personally been involved with the MCLR and CCHI efforts for about 2 years as a volunteer and believe this is a noble effort, please excuse my lack of wikipedia etiquette as i am a newbie, thanks for the help.

Also as the person who did the initial sandbox copy and paste, and subsequent creative commons request to the people at MCLR 2014 in order to comply with fair use licensing...i request that anyone interested may contact me with additional recommendations to clean up this article to comply with standard wiki formatting, thanks again Ganjagreg (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In order to have an article about this, it must be WP:Notable as Wikipedia defines it. That means that it has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case for this proposped initiative. Note to User:Ganjagreg and User:Morepot, this is not a social media site which you can use to promote your cause. This is an international encyclopedia, and the only articles we can have here are things that qualify to be an article in an encyclopedia. There are many places where you can promote your initiative and gather supporters (try Facebook), but Wikipedia isn't one of them. If it qualifies for the ballot at some time in the future, then it will (possibly) qualify for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janice M. Babiak

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

Non-notable businessperson. I was unable to find any coverage that was not WP:TRIVIALMENTION, WP:ROUTINE, or a press release. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Bali88 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Fixed per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huda Sha'arawi

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

There exists an article on the same subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huda_Shaarawi Staglit (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong forum. Just redirect to the more developed article (and merge anything that may be missing from there). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and was BOLD, and have redirected and merged everything. It should be fixed now! Tazerdadog (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pliuskaitis

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

Despite having nine footnotes at the bottom of the article, a cursory check of them reveals that only the banning-related sources actually focuses on the subject; the rest are passing mentions. Therefore, I contend that this article fails the notability standard and also, given the focus on one event (the suspension) when you consider the sources, also fails WP:BLP1E. Daniel (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to be a pretty reasonable WP:BLP1E deletion (and for a pretty routine E at that). The only thing weighing against deletion is he also had an almost notable court case against a board member of a swim club. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear (negative) BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coaching the Canadian national swimming team and being named national coach of the year seem like enough to show notability. I'll admit the only source I could find for these was in a legal document, but that seems valid enough.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, no, a legal document doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a negative WP:BLP1E. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can find enough reliable secondary sources about him to write a balanced version that doesn't place so much WP:WEIGHT on the negative details. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Crow

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

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable porn actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we were judging just by the image I'd say Keep .... but sadly we dont!, So Delete as a non notable porn actor/model. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She's really not a porn performer -- her "fame" is as a topless/nude model. I'm not saying she is or isn't worthy of an article, but it seems silly to base her notability on WP:PORNBIO when she's not a porn actress. Drpickem (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the GNG. As noted above, the subject is not a porn/"adult" performer, but a "glamour" model, and there is no indication she meets any relevant SNG criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non Notable Glamour model. Finnegas (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Contact Karate Association

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

Non-notable subgroup of the English Karate Federation which itself does not have an article. Only source is its website and a link to its membership in the national organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources and no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, merely appearing a list of member organizations. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (WP:CSD#G12) as a copyright infringement of this website. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Taiwan relations

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

Completely un-sourced and contradicts Bangladesh–China relations. No evidence of notability of relations between these countries. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleteActually, looking at it again, it is extremely innacurate and biased, and whould be needed to be re written anyway if teh articel would be staying. Staglit (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per nominating editor Bali88 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 - obvious misinformation. See eg [[11]] which directly contradicts the main assertion of this page. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a distinction between the PRC (China) and the ROC (Taiwan), and that the article is claiming that Bangladesh cannot officially recognize the ROC (Taiwan) as a Sovereign nation due to their diplomatic relationship with China (I agree that the wording of the article is unclear in this regard). That claim is unsourced and not notable enough for its own article, but not necessarily contradicted by your source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On my reading, it claims exactly the opposite. "Bangladesh opted to recognise the ROC" with no indication that this position has changed. "Although Bangladesh does not recognise the PRC (therefore illegal to travel there with a Bangladeshi passport)" - saying that it is impossible for Bangladeshis to travel to the PRC (mainland China) because Bangladesh "does not recognise the PRC" - exactly the apposite of what you've said. I agree it's awkwardly worded, but AFAICT the reasonably plain meaning of it is false. On a side note, my home country doesn't recognise the ROC, either, but it hasn't stopped me travelling there. GoldenRing (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That second sentence was changed between when I first saw the article and when I finally got around to tagging and nominating it. I agree with you that the article is flat out wrong as it currently stands. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable diplomatic relationship requiring coverage beyond a brief mention in respective Foreign relations of X articles. Stalwart111 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and original research. created by an editor who is on a spreee of creating unreferenced bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is underlinked and it does not contain any reference. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per misinformation concern. As of now the article content appears to be an opinion piece copied from this forum. -- SMS ^Talk 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not just a copy, but an altered copy - the wording is identical except for the reversal of China and Taiwan, e.g. "There is no choice available recognising both the PRC and ROC as legitimate nations, so Bangladesh opted to recognise the PRC" became "...so Bangladesh opted to recognise the ROC". Delete as deliberate misinformation. 123.121.226.9 (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Bella

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

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability. No reliable source coverage found in search. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actor. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Gene93k. No indications of any significance, let alone notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Bir Tawil

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

I can find no sources for this group whatsoever, but I'm bringing it here rather than using speedy or prod in the hope that somebody else can do it. ( I note our article on Bir Tawil gives a population of zero. See also Google Sightseeing DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find any sources under this name, or for any group with a similar name. Moswento ^talky 20:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not technically a ghost town nor a micronation, this may be a hoax. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G5. —DoRD (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.T.T. Easter

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

Creator of non-notable direct-to-video films. Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Recreation of article already deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul T T Easter. WP:CSD#G4 applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Load Impact

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep with a quick search on google, I can find several articles in newspapers and mentions about this company.Staglit (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is pretty much irrelevant, because the article is not about the company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are not the same as significant coverage, as described on Wikipedia:Notability. If you found newspaper coverage, you should link it here to support your position.Dialectric (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find substential coverage in reliable sources for this service. In fact there is a couple of mention in the niche press with questional reliability, which I would consider to amass to one source in terms of WP:GNG. There's also a CrunchBase profile page, but this source is building idescriminate collection of IT start ups, and the profile mostly discuss the company, not the service (which is the topic of this article). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant independent coverage to establish notability - sources used in article are non-RS blogs or developer's sites; a search turned up more blogs ([12],[13]) but no significant RS coverage; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia–Pakistan relations

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

These two countries don't appear to have any notable relations beyond a statement from the President of Mongolia, and the entire article is a copyvio. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough for an article and copyvio. Bali88 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G12 obvious copyvio. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable diplomatic relationship requiring coverage beyond a brief mention in respective Foreign relations of X articles. Stalwart111 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite likely a notable topic, but the current article is just a copyvio. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Benzale Guerrero

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

He still has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined based on an unverified claim that he played for Atlético Venezuela. Without sources, this claim obviously does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, remains non-notable, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG.
Delete - I could only find routine coverage (e.g., match reports) on his exploits in the Dominican league; article doesn't satisfy our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Bolton

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

The article is 'filled out', but is based solely on one source (which can be found online here) and doesn't prove notability of subject. The article reads more like an obituary or a 'Who's Who' entry than an encyclopedia article. Attempts to find other sources online almost exclusively lead back to the library named for the subject. HOT WUK (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not know Dictionary of Louisiana Biography, but I would suggest that a person selected for inclusion in such a work is notable. If notable there should be an article. The fact that the article relies on only one reliable source is no ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only having one reliable source is definitely grounds for deletion, as one source is not sufficient to indicate notability. Also, inclusion in some dictionary of biographies doesn't necessarily indicate notability; I could publish my own dictionary of biographies and include myself, but that wouldn't make me notable. Moreover, dictionaries of biographies tend to include huge amounts of people who aren't really actually notable by Wikipedia's standards. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. Reads like a family bio. Kierzek (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he appeared to be unknown outside of his locaity. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 advertising, like the other version. The text makes clear that this was a marketing exercise. A US university has a "revolutionary class that guides students through the multi-faceted world of book publishing"; the class picked this unpublished novel and "were given different tasks that would eventually lead to the publication of the manuscript." The tasks included "social media campaigning" and these articles are evidently part of that. What the class need to learn is that Wikipedia (a) is not "social media" and is not a place for "campaigning" and (b) has inclusion standards like WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pocket guide to divorce

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

Article is about a non-notable book, with little apparant claim of significance. The sourcing is almost non-existant, and a quick google search was not encouraging. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Can't see much coverage on this. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding any reviews or coverage in secondary sources. Could possibly merge into Neil Connelly. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just CSD'd the same page by User:Mitch Higby with the same content. Please, someone, inform the class that Wikipedia is unacceptable social media. Origamite^{Please talk here} 11:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd normally recommend a redirect, but the author's page also looks kind of dodgy as well. There's just no coverage for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the author's page and found enough to justify an article for him. I also created a redirect with the proper capitalization, so there's no need to turn this into a redirect after it's deleted. On a side note, I can't help but wonder if this is copyvio due to its promotional tone. It could probably be speedied as promotional in any case.

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Professional Kickboxing League

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

Article about a defunct kickboxing organization that lacks independent sources. Even if the unsourced claims of having notable fighters compete in it is true, an organization's notability is not inherited from its members. My search did not turn up any significant independent coverage. Since it's not listed among the significant organizations at WP:KICK, I'd conclude it was a minor organization even when it existed.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. I think the nominator's comments sum it up nicely. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Lloyd Saxton (footballer)

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Speedy deletion was declined on the grounds that the last afd was four years ago and an apparent claim to having played in a fully pro league. This claim is false. Saxton's apperances since 2010 have been in Conference North and in the fourth and fifth tiers of Swedish football none of which are fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, remains non-notable, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Wolf Productions

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

Article that was previously speedied three times in the past two months for being a completely unsourced advertisement for the company instead of a properly neutral encyclopedia article; on its fourth recreation it was prodded instead, and the prod tag was removed yesterday on the basis of purported sourcing improvements to the article. However, the article is still relying entirely on primary sources and IMDb for "referencing", with not a single reliable source in the bunch, so the company's basic notability has still not been demonstrated in any way. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be brought up to scratch, but the company is not entitled to keep this version of an article about it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No proof of notability, lack of reliable sources. Bali88 (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN company.reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No evidence of notability. Pburka (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:COMPANY. If the author(s) show understanding of WP:N and the issues with WP:COI, I'd consider a return to sender. Simply put, while company does exist, and does receive bare mention-in-passing in reliable sources,[14][15] BUT bare mentions are all that can be found. As production company behind 7 films... 1 winner, 2 non-winners, and 4 in post-production... the awards of Guest House for the work of the cast and crew, does not indicate a notability for the company itself. Allow undeletion/recreation only when the company itself receives coverage AS a company. IF there were ever to be an article on founder Aaron Wolf, it might be mentioned there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hans Hess

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

No assertion of notability made save perhaps one of advanced age for the 16th century, and I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would provide evidence of notability. Still, historical figures sometimes rely to a greater degree on offline sources, so additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and contemplate an A7 speedy. Personally, I wouldn't be generous enough to consider his lifespan an implicit claim of notability, and his relationship to Hans Jacob Hess is certainly not one. Speedy requirements notwithstanding, I don't see any appropriate sources here, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Absolutely no claim to notability in the article. Concur that this is probably a good A-7 CSD candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A lifespan of more than 95 years is very rare, even today. And plenty of independent sources about him, even online. My friend (a direct patrilineal descendant) has some papers on him. Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have other sources that might help establish notability you should add them. I couldn't find any and right now this article still looks like a good A-7 candidate to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent online sources. http://www.geni.com/people/Johannes-Hess/6000000022865365212 http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/e/s/David-Eugene-Hess/GENE2-0001.html http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/e/s/David-Eugene-Hess/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0089.html http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/hess/pats http://www.reocities.com/judys-space/Vol2/hesse.htm http://www.crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol2/hesse.htm

Family-contributed genealogy resources do not meet the projects requirements for reliable sources. Unfortunately, none of these websites would be considered independent and reliable for the purposes of this article. Also, Wikipedia uses the word "WP:Notability" as a term of art referring to the threshold of coverage necessary for inclusion. This subject's claimed age during the era he lived in may be rare or distinctive or even interesting, but those characteristics do not make him notable, as the term is used here. As a separate problem, adequate and reliable documentation for longevity claims before the 20th century (and, often, even then) is generally not considered to exist; it is impossible to distinguish legitimately long-lived 16th century people from spurious claims of long life (of which there are many). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I'd imagine finding sources dating back 460 years ago is going to be pretty hard, The source so far isn't perfect but it's better than nothing, So I say Keep & Try improving more sources. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you see the notability justifying a "strong keep?" As far as I can tell there is nothing here beyond evidence that he existed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy did nothing of note. He was the some-great-grandfather of a notable person, that is it. I am all for keeping articles on historic people, Wikipedia is far too presentist, but this guy is totally not notable. He did nothing, held no positions, as far as I can tell wrote nothing, advocated no phylosopy or idea, he is totally unnotable. Living to be 95 has been a lot less than remarkable for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Living to be 97 is a big deal today, and was an even bigger deal in the 1500s, when the life expectancy was about 40. Given that most sources about him are likely to be print or handwritten sources in foreign languages, I think the best approach is to keep the article and try to expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewTrierLeaks (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC) — NewTrierLeaks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being rare, interesting, or a "big deal" isn't the same as being notable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the article to suggest that any significant independent sources will be found. We don't even have a reliable source for the fact that he lived to 97 - could be the result of a typo somewhere along the line. Even if it's not, where is the evidence that people in the C16th wrote about other people just because of their age? Moswento ^talky 10:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a compelling argument. If sources are found, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look at Oldest people. None of the people in that list have done anything significant or noteworthy - other than living for a long, long time. As has been said above, while living to be 97 may not be a huge deal today, living to be 97 in an era when the average lifespan was about 40 is nothing short of remarkable. And, it's not terribly surprising that sources from that era (roughly 500 years ago) are not available online! Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Remarkable" is not the same as "something that multiple independent reliable sources have been written about". Nowadays, very old people are the subject of human interest newspaper stories. They didn't have human interest newspaper stories in the 16th century. Notable people from the past have generally been written about at least a few times centuries after their death. There is no evidence that this is the case with this chap. Moswento ^talky 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly sourced article lacking any indication that this is a person of historical interest. As for the claimed age at death, two of the web pages linked above appear to be honest enough to represent the birth year of Johannes/Hans and the following three generations as nothing more than estimates, but not even these pages clarify how these (estimated) dates were calculated. As far as any of us can tell, this Johannes/Hans (who was almost certainly never called "Johannes Hans") may well have been born a decade or two later than 1458. --Hegvald (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the date is not an estimate. It is because usually only birthyears, nor birthdates, were recorded at the time MrCorve (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) — MrCorve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do you have a reliable source for his birth year? Or, better, multiple independent reliable sources about him? Moswento ^talky 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of this debate about his age is irrelevant. Even if age was somewhere in WP:BIO (and it's not) the subject still runs afoul of One Event. This a non-notable individual and this article needs to go. On a side note; I don't want to accuse anyone of anything specifically out of deference to AGF, but I would encourage people to be careful about sock puppetry. That's a huge no no around here and can get an editor blocked or even banned. Just saying... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stretching WP:CRYSTAL a bit too much. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup

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

Too soon? this is not for another 9 years. Wgolf (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not yet notable. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:TOOSOON. There are already references about this that some quarters are getting ready for this already. –H T D 14:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this is a notable subject, probably because it will not happen for nine years.- Mr X 14:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly is the applicable policy on events like this one? We do have articles about the Olympics as far away as 2028, and the World Cup as far away as 2026, after all. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. If we have WP:RS that people are getting ready for this already, it's good to go. Right now, FIBA apparently has sent notices to its members that bidding is open.This November, we'd already have notices on which countries will be bidding for the 2023 world cup. That's just months from now. One can say, based on policy, that once either notices have been sent (right now) or bids have been received (this November) can this article be viable. Take your pick. –H T D 09:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah the Olympic ones I can understand-but this on the other hand is not as notable as the Olympics. World Cup in 2026 seems questionable, but since that isn't that big in the US-I don't get the point then. Still this seems too soon. Maybe in a couple years. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED (actually deleted due to G7: single author, who blanked the page)

Kang Jun Ho

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

This article doesn't make it clear whether this person is in fact an artist or just a fan of K-pop. There's a mass of references, but I can't see their relevance. Slashme (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nominator: After nominating the page for deletion, I discovered that there had previously been a request for speedy deletion, which was removed by the author. I also see now that this page was moved into the main article space from userspace, so it really should just go ASAP. --Slashme (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per my original nomination under {{db-person}}: no indication of notability, the music list does just seem to be the subject's favourite music. I have replaced the speedy tag on the page as it was removed by the page's author. GILO A&E⇑ 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, spambot word salad. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which Created the Game of Football

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

Very difficult to identify the subject of the article; given sources do not relate or verify any of the prose. Possibly original research. Drm310 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lauffer

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

No assertion of notability. Slashme (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator: Comment: This is a self-created page which is essentially someone's CV. I don't see anything in it which even claims notability according to WP:PROF. --Slashme (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking delete vote -- nomination is already considered to be a vote for delete. (it doesn't look like it will matter either way though). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely self-sourced, complete with trademarked catchphrase and signature. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. Could plausibly be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11 as unambiguous self-promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per all above. I wish we could had a CSD for "resume", but we do not...Tazerdadog (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Echoing "resume" sentiment: not an encyclopaedia article. Fylbecatulous talk 21:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: same as what everyone else is saying, nothing of importance. Surprise it has been here so long. Wgolf (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mršić

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: can't find any evidence online that he's played in a professional match yet. No significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources online, only the Transfer-Sport profile that says he was signed to NK Osijek, but nothing in that reference about appearances. Ruby Murray 16:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the claim that he played in a fully pro league is not verified and he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Philippe Mouzon

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

The article has a very promotional tone to it. Beyond which, the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. A Google turned up very little on him in the first 10 pages beyond the usual promotional sites. Cited sources fail WP:RS. Claimed award is trivial. Entry in Marquis Who's Who is not generally accepted as evidence of WP:N as their standards for inclusion are lower than Wikipedia's and they get their biographical information directly from the subject. I note for any reviewing editors that I did find quite a bit of information on Alphonse Mouzon, the subject's father, who probably is notable, the poorly written article notwithstanding. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Bali88 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claim to notability seems to be one appearance in Lethal Weapon and relationship to various family members - this is not enough. GoldenRing (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GoldenRing, can't find any reliable sources about him. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. While I did some thorough rewriting, there is no indication of notability at all for him. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhill Christian School

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

Procedural nomination. An IP address prodded the article, and keeps removing text and tagging it, apparently for sourcing issues and lack of notability. I tried gently to explain on the IP user's talk page that almost all high schools are inherently notable, and no, it was not a hoax. I started to add text and citations, but am too busy to complete this task right now. The IP even tagged one citation as not citing the school, although it's plainly there, and a second cite as trivial. I have no axe to grind -- I did not create the article, nor am an evangelical; I don't even recall that I have been to Janesville, Wisconsin, where this school is located. The IP address removed my messages on its talk page, and twice vandalized my talk page, frustrating me to the point that I've had to semi-protect my talk page and come here for community input. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school is not notable. Period. It is not a high school. It's a K-12 school, with an enrollment of 68 in all 13 grades. In 2010 it had 7 graduates. There are no reliable sources that establish any sort of notability, over and above it being an average, run-of-the-mill tiny, unknown school. Bearian added a source that not only fails verification for the sentence it supposedly supports, but says nothing whatsoever about the school. (It consists merely of the school's name in a list.) He also added a trivial, unencyclopedic sentence about the school having received some hand-me-down computers from the federal government, apparently in a weak effort to establish notability.

Bearian has been quick on the draw to label me a vandal. He placed a vandalism warning on my talk page because I prodded the article. And I have never vandalized Bearian's talk page. He has called my honest efforts to stop his removal of legitimate templates from the article without fixing the underlying problems "vandalism". I asked him to stop this scurrilous practice, but he's here doing it again.

And stop calling me "an IP" in an attempt to disparage my edits. IPs are editors. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oakhill Christian School has a high school. High schools are considered to be notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a high school (as well as elementary school), it demonstrably exists, so its Wikipedia article exists. No problem. (I'm a bit worried by Bearian's deleted comments on the IP talk page which suggest that if it wasn't in the USA or wasn't Christian there might be more grounds for deleting it...!) And note that the University pdf link, which the IP says proves nothing, does in fact include the school in a list of high schools invited to take part in a science fair - ie shows that an external body considers it to be a high school. PamD 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's not cherry-pick our guidelines. WP:NHS also says: "Merely claiming to enroll teenagers or containing the words 'high school' in its name is not enough for a school to be given a separate, stand-alone article." 71.139.142.132 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG which is more important than any secondary notability guidelines. Secret ^account 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per longstanding consensus for treatment of schools, in which high schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. THIS confirms existence as a high school. It does not matter if the high school is large or small, public or private, secular or sectarian. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite being a deletionist, I have generally agreed with the "all high schools are notable" arguments of the past. However, I'm not finding this one to be terribly convincing thus far. That a K-12 private school teaches a handful (at best) of 14-18 yr olds does not grant it entry into the "automatic HS notability club IMO. Second, a relevant part of Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) is " To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body." From what I see so far, this school should be accredited by the WRISA (Wisconsin Religious and Independent Schools Accreditation), but it does not appear on their list. According to the school's contact info and the church's contact info, the two share the same physical address and even the same phone number. Honestly, what this appears to be is a small bible school largely for the church members, nothing more. If this bears out, I think the keep votes cast thus far should reconsider. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't mentioned the rationale behind the Consensus on Schools lately and will do so now. The Consensus on Schools is a two part proposition that represents a compromise between deletionists seeking a concise encyclopedia and inclusionists seeking in an expansive encyclopedia: (1) Elementary schools are presumed non-notable, barring demonstration of extraordinary additional circumstances; (2) High schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable per se. The reasoning is that a good biography will include mention of a high school but not of elementary schools. These links should be blue, not red. High schools also typically have associated sports teams, dramatic activities, band activities, and so forth that generate news coverage; and their construction, opening, administrative changes, and decommissioning are matters of coverage in the local press. Elementary schools, on the other hand, generally generate far less such coverage. These articles are redirected to the article on the school board responsible for them. Rather than fighting over whether to include or remove thousands of articles on schools at AfD, something which would bog down the works incredibly, the very simple Consensus on Schools has evolved. It is not a formal policy, but it is a de facto guideline, adhered to by 98%+ of closing administrators over the years. It's a rational solution and one that I and others very much support. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a small school, with the online sources stating an enrollment of around 70. However, it's big enough to have sports teams receiving substantial coverage in state media (e.g. [16][17][18] and many more similar stories), and big enough for the Army to give it a bunch of used computers as part of its Computers for Learning program [19]. Under our usual precedents I think this suffices. I'll also take this opportunity to express my agreement with Carrite's explanation about why the consensus is a good thing, and I'll add that I think high school articles provide an positive starting point for new editors to try their hand at editing on a subject they know about: yes, we get a lot of unconstructive edits in school articles, but we also get a lot of constructive ones.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add: HighBeam has a 2007 article about the school and one of its graduates, who had been admitted to West Point. The article notes that the school had at that point been around for 35 years, and that the school's basketball team had won the Wisconsin Association of Christian Schools state title three years in a row. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify:The linked High Beam article was about one of its students, not about the school. It also mentioned that the school had a graduating class of two. Besides, a single article is not "significant coverage". 71.139.142.132 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd feel a lot better about these assertions of consensus if you could point to a policy, guideline, or talk page discussion as evidence. Even then, consensus can change. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a stub article which has 3 independent sources. That already complies with WP:GNG; at the very least we should give editors a chance to flesh it out and add further sources as needed. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The article has 2 sources, the reliability of one being in doubt. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-correction: Wrong. I am including the two external links. That makes four sources/refs of which one is not independent. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bermicourt: - which WP:GNG says that 3 independent sources that verify existence and one brief, local piece about a laptop donation constitutes notability? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a non notable school. Yes these type of schools can be notable, however this one fails our General Notability Guideline by a country mile. School notability guidelines do not notability guidelines do not overrule GNG, they are simply a presumption that secondary schools should be able to meet GNG. This one cant.Blethering Scot 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FWIW, it passes my own standards. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it is a small school with few sources for it does not mean that it isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is teaching up to (at least) 16, this is a High School; and the accepted view is that they are all notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From the essay people are relying on to vote keep: "In the isolated instances where such schools have been deleted at WP:AfD, editors were commonly unable to independently verify much more than the school's existence, and sometimes not even that much." Existence alone is not enough. Saying "we've done it in the past" is not an argument if not supported by policy (related to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Also from WP:NHS, as already quoted above, "To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body." So even if more than existence could be determined by independent secondary sources, it may not qualify as a "high school." When I was a kid I knew a homeschooling family who half-jokingly referred to their home as the "[street they lived on] school." To hear the way people are talking about the notability of high schools, if a local homeschooling magazine mentioned this "school," and it happened to be home to a 9th grader, it would be on Wikipedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:IAR, WP:POINT WP:NPASR WP:SK#1: "the nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion". XfD is not an RfC biased with a !vote to delete and without an argument for deletion. WP:POINT: Nominator stipulates in the nomination that the topic is notable, and then !votes to delete. Stating that this is somehow procedural has no standing, the nom is still a !vote to delete. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was thinking this might be a borderline case until I saw Arxiloxos' links to high school basketball game scores, such as this. This proves that they have at least 6 boys in high school which refutes some of the earlier arguments about it having very few students at a high school level. Royal broil 03:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems no compelling reason to delete; the reasons given here seem to be either (a) it's small (not a sufficient reason for deleting IMO) or (b) "it fails to meet the GNG" without stating any reasoning as to why they think it fails the guideline and the sources given in the article are insufficient. Even the nominator doesn't seem to want the article deleted. WaggersTALK 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above - Schools are notable whether we like it or not. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a high school who's existance is confirmed with sources and that has been mentioned in local newspapers. That's enough for a school for me. Chuy1530 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Secret and Tarc. GNG supersedes any more specific guidelines or consensus. Yes, public schools are clearly notable, we've established that through consensus and the availability of secondary sources. There is no such consensus or possibility of a similar blanket approach to non-public schools, otherwise we will have articles for every storefront charter school, regardless of the availability of reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or preferably merge and redirect to the city's section on education because we don't have significant coverage of the school itself in third-party reliable sources, which is required by the policy at WP:Verifiability so that we could actually write an entire article that contains more than just what the subject says about itself, which in turn is required by the WP:NPOV policy. We haven't found of have anything about the school that isn't in the small local newspaper, which is a violation of WP:ORG (which has explicitly included schools and other educational institutions for years). I know that there are a handful of (almost always younger) editors who want to believe that anybody who claims to issue diplomas that they label "high school" deserves to have an entire article about it in Wikipedia because they're just so terribly important to high school students. I know there are people who are just sick of the disputes and so vote to keep all "high school" articles in the belief that suspending good judgment will make it go away. But just like the essay at NHS says, an unaccredited "high school" that graduates a couple of students a year is little more than a home school, and without independent sources, we can't actually write a balanced article. We should no more keep this article than we should keep one on "WhatamIdoing's Ballet High School". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have yet to see a single call to keep this article address a concern I raised regarding accreditation. For those that may have missed it, I will again point to this clause in Wikipedia:Notability (high schools); "To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body." If this cannot be rebutted, then this article fails the HS notability guideline, which is what the claimed "we have always agreed that high schools are notable" agreement rests upon. The only other avenue for retention then rests on the general notability guide, but thus far only brief blurbs about sporting event scores and a laptop giveaway have been unearthed. This is far below the GNG standard of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thankfully AfDs are not head counts, and the eventual closing admin will note that the claims that the GNG is met ring hollow, and that the "it is a High School, therefore keep" are false, as it fails the HS guide. Thus far, this is a slam-dunk deletion. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree completely with Tarc. Putting aside the speedy keeps, which seem moot given the extensive debate that has taken place (speedy keep followed by an immediate, differently phrased AfD seems pointless), there is one keep argument that argues a stub article with three sources satisfies the GNG (which I don't agree with), but each and every one of the others relies on the existence of a school being a trump card to all other policies. In the essay for the exception it explains that existence alone isn't actually enough and that in order to count in the first place it must be government-run or otherwise accredited. As Tarc points out, this hasn't even been established -- so the exception (which isn't actually an exception), does not even apply. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to belabor the issue, but I think that a school with an active interscholastic athletics program covered in newspapers (including state championships), with multiple references that show it is regarded as a bona fide school (that was forty computers they got from the military, not one or two), should and does meet the standard for being treated as a bona fide school. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see it as belaboring, I see it as a point that should be addressed. Coverage of local sports is routine, and a donation of computers is a nice gesture, but neither provides coverage of the subject itself as called for by the WP:GNG. They are simple stories that say "X happened at Y school on Z date". If we were talking about a person here, such coverage would be deemed trivial, or the proverbial "name-dropping". You also speak of a "bona fide" school, but I have pointed out a clause in Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) that this "school" explicitly fails to meet; it is not accredited. Both of those link are guidelines, not policy, and guidelines can be set aside for a greater need. But I have yet to see an argument put forth to do that. It does not meet the qualifications for this "we all kinda agreed that all high schools are notable" side dela that people allude to. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also like to point out that WP:ORG specifically quotes "the season schedule or final score from sporting events" as a form of coverage that is to be considered trivial. The articles written present very little beyond what a stat page would provide. If you're looking for this to pass GNG on its own legs, I think the case is fairly weak. Realistically, you need to take our stance on other HS pages into account. Sasquatch t|c 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Final score" to me would mean a line-item in a list of scores, not a substantial article actually covering the game. And there's still the matter of those state championships--common sense tells me that a school that contends in a league of high schools is likely to be a real school. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        My usual interpretation is if a news article presents no more information than a box score would, I would not consider that deep coverage. None of the articles linked even show that a reporter was at the game. They've simply taken a stat page provided to them and regurgitated it in a sentence. On any other page, I highly doubt you would call this non-trivial coverage. But that's my interpretation. Sasquatch t|c 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-see no problem with this article-it seems to be notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of accreditation. Both the Wisconsin Educational Approval Board and Tarc's post raise some interesting issues about whether or not this school actually passes WP:NHS guidelines. Definitely doesn't meet the depth of coverage guidelines in WP:ORG based off merely relisting stats off of a scorepage in a full sentence. The military computer donation is the only piece that I would consider enough to squeak by as a reliable third party source, but even then, it doesn't impart any sense of notability for the school other than they applied for a program and got it... Doesn't really show anything about academics or qualities of school that are worth reporting on. In lieu of evidence of accreditation (heck, even the Wisconsin Association of Christian Schools no longer lists them), I see no meaningful content to keep. If someone can prove otherwise, I will gladly swap my vote. Sasquatch t|c 23:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetTradeX

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP, as I was unable to find any non-trivial WP:SECONDARY coverage. The only source cited in the article is a press release, and the only non-press-release sources I could find were articles that indicated that a chart in the article was generated with this company's software (and notability of the company is WP:NOTINHERITED from their software anyway). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't even tell if this is an article about the corporation or the software. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I still can't quite tell what whether subject of this article is the company or the product, but my Google searches have convinced me that neither are notable. This is specialized software that would not be given coverage by mainstream computing publications, but I would at least expect the company to show up somewhere outside of press releases. As far as I can tell, it does not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like NetTradeX is a currency trading software platform, developed by NetTradeX corp, which is supported/owned by IFC Markets [20]. While the software has been covered at places like CNet and Investing.com, the contents are simply company supplied descriptions and feature lists. Similarly, articles at Reuters and PRWeb are simply press releases. I was unable to find any independent reliable sources for this product. Without independent RS, this article fails notability per WP:GNG and cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether the article is about the company or the product, it fails WP:ORG and WP:PRODUCT based on available reliable sources that cover the subject in any depth.- Mr X 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of heavy equipment equivalents

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This comparison list is meaningless to anyone not deeply ensconced in the construction trades and thus already familiar with what this jumble of letters and numbers means. To the general reader, this list has no value whatsoever. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not convinced about the encyclopedic value of this list. Moswento ^talky 12:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lists of equipment models for individual manufacturers are accepted as uncontroversial facts, including for some of the same manufacturers mentioned in this stub, with examples at List of Caterpillar Inc. machines; List of John Deere tractors; Komatsu America Models. An article which correlates those various models across manufacturers would be useful new content. Unfortunately, the current article is just cut-and-paste from an external Web page (archived here). Besides the possibility of (technical) bias as coming from a single source, the lists are incomplete, such as including Caterpillar D7 and D8 but not D9 or D11. A good article would explain the similarities rather than just listing model numbers, not just “A ≈ B”, but more like “A and B both use one-ton-class high-temperature turboencabulators”. Obviously this is not yet such an article, but there is potential. If someone is willing to adopt the article, I would suggest userfy it. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I would agree that the List of Caterpillar Inc. machines is "accepted as uncontroversial fact": I believe that article to be as pointless as the current article in that a mere list of model numbers, with nothing to differentiate or define them, serves no purpose whatsoever. If we do choose to userfy this article, it may have to be to the userspace of a different editor than the original author, as that author appears to be somewhat inactive. I did enjoy your use of the term turboencabulator in your example, though. As an old engineer, I'm glad to see this bit of kerfuffle is still around. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Guam

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

This article is essentially original synthesis. The lead acknowledges, in fact, that racism is not particularly prevalent, and then the article appeals to a couple of incidents in which accusations of racism were made. There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is really a thing. St Anselm (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the incidents are by any means notable, they might be included in the article Guam itself. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK. No need to create a separate home for this content. aprock (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (edit conflict) A YouTube video and an accusation about racism. Not exactly what I'd call WP:NOTABLE. Merge would be an option per Fauzan above, but that's only if the stuff could be verified as being worth a mention, which it isn't from what I'm seeing. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve An attempt to find better sources should happen instead. A quick search finds note of Racism in Guam, mostly towards the chuukese people. See this chapter in "Proving Chamorro": Indigenous Narratives of Race, Identity, and Decolonization on Guam and this chapter in Destiny's Landfall: A History of Guam. The article doesn't need deletion, it needs improving Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to view the first reference; the second reference only mentions an American governor 100 years ago who is described as being racist. St Anselm (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube is not much of a source for anything at all -- and the claim about an identifiable living person (Asst. A-G of Guam is a living person, and a specific living person) is contrary to the requirements of WP:BLP. I am quite uncertain the "blog.heritage.com" meets WP:RS for any contentious claims at all. Is Guam blameless? Probably not, but this article is not ready for prime time on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete - Racism is an important topic and exists everywhere, so racism in Guam is definitely something that would work on wikipedia. As is, the article isn't going to work. I posted the article on wikiproject: discrimination to see if anyone is interested in taking on the task as well as the talk page of Culture of Guam. I think it may work as a merge onto Culture of Guam. If no one improves the article, I will vote to delete, but I'm hoping that someone can improve the article to meet wikipedia standards. Bali88 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK, if/when reliable sources are found then I see no problem with this being remade or redirected at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Bengala

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kid Bengala (2nd nomination)

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

Interesting but unfortunately non notable individual. Fails WP:PORNBIO with no award wins or other relevant criteria. Failed election bid adds nothing to notability. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources provided. Moreover, none were found in my internet search. Finnegas (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly non-notable, both as an actor and as a politician. --Slashme (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. This is pretty much a snow delete anyway, but G7 makes the discussion somewhat moot. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Summer

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

Non-notable film. No indications can be found for the actual existence of this film or any of its directors, writers or actors. The article may well be a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find any sources at all. Possible hoax, definite non-notable. Moswento ^talky 12:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention anywhere in online websites listing upcoming films. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a good sign when a search of the movie title and apparent lead actor yields nothing in Google. Similar searches using other combinations also turned up no sources. Gongshow talk 17:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per currently lacking coverage and verifiability. Being kind... IF this project was actually created by a team of total unknowns (it is possible), its lack of release and coverage make this article at its best, TOO SOON. If its purported July DVD release takes place AND if it receives coverage outside of sales sites, we can consider undeletion or recreation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bifunctional Model of Knowledge, Understanding, Self-Regulation and Brain-Mind Cycle of Reflection

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

Apparently non-notable theory: no hits on Google or Google Scholar for either bifunctional model of knowledge or biofunctional model of knowledge (note that it isn't spelled the same in the title as in the content). —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mention of this "model" in any sources not written by the non-notable author of the non-notable journal article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rambling psycho-babble, well below the quality standard that is expected in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - It's pretty clear from the citations that it should be "biofunctional". The title is cobbled together from titles of various articles by Iran-Nejad. To the extent it is mentioned by other authors, the theory seems to be referred to as "biofunctional learning". RockMagnetist (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even "biofunctional learning" gets almost no hits in either Google or Google Scholar that are even possibly independent of Iran-Nejad and his colleagues. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't access any of the sources, but I strongly suspect that a lot of the content is copied from them, so there may even be grounds for speedy deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if a copyright violation is found, check User:Mansourib/sandbox for copyright issues as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar shows 79 citations of "Iran-Nejad,A. & Ortony,A.(1984). A biofunctional model of distributed mental content, mental structure, awareness, and attention. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5, 171-210".— Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 April 2014

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

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

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Shia

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

Another violation of Wikipedia:No original research by Striver, a long-dormant user who was a great editor but notorious for subtle POV pushing and OR. I'm not even sure if Wikipedia:Notability here as the term simple appears to be made up; the only support for its existence is one single comment on a random Sunni website; there is no historical literature using the term and it isn't even a neologism because neither Sunni nor Shi'a websites or books in the modern era seem to use this term. I don't think it's even real. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence for this being an existent, let alone significant, branch of Islam. Sources insufficient. Even if real, it would appear to be an original synthesis of sources - wholly breaching WP:OR. BethNaught (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep The Muslims I Know states: "If you search the words “moderate Muslim” today you will get more than 8 million hits on the internet." This article is difficult to read, as it appears to be a pro and con between two diverse sects, and at present seems to have no sources for the last half. It focuses on a religious point and counterpoint. That being said, I think there is potential. There is interest in this topic. It assumes the reader has some basic knowledge of the split in Islam. Taking that for granted, it is rather like walking into the middle of murder mystery movie, so that being lost and left behind is endemic to its structure. It also needs to be brought into the sectarian world. I've added a couple of non-Muslim non-Arabic citations that should do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, I don't think you've quite gotten what the article is. The sources you've added, such as this one, are simply stories discussing whether Shi'ites or Sunnis are more moderate than the other, and the "further reading" just contains stuff about what moderate Islam is. That would be more in line with Liberal movements within Islam.

This article is totally different; it's supposedly about a term used by Sunnis to denote Shi'a they like but the "Sunni views" section doesn't establish this; one modern day website used the term "moderate" in passing while the two historical sources don't use it at all. I am not finding any Sunnis using the term Moderate Shi'a as an actual thing. The "Shi'a views" section claims that Shi'ites reject the term but provides no sources, further giving the impression that non even Shi'ites have heard of this supposed term.

Now your recent edits were good but I think they're to the wrong article, because this article has nothing to do with branding populations as moderate or extreme; this article is more specific than that. The factuality/existence of the term is still unproven and seems clearly a result of OR on the part of the creator. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all of the points you made, including the lack of sources in the Shia view. The question of doctrinal purity and the characterization of one or the other as "moderate" or not is inherent in the schism, and is part of the reason why these groups do or don't get along. The BBC Channel 4 article discusses this. As I indicated, the lack of contextual history (which the BBC article helps provide) is a major lapse in the article. I would think that can be remedied. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:7&6=thirteen, you still don't get it. The article has no relevance to what you're talking about. The opening line says: "According to some, a moderate Shi'a is a term for the Salaf who loved Ali." This is about a term, not a schism. And this isn't about whether the term is notable; it's about whether it's real or just something the creator made up. Do people use this term "Moderate Shia" or not? This is the issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is about a schism and about the associated nomenclature. The term "moderate" is ambiguous, and is used in context to make various points.

You have your opinion, and I have mine. The BBC says: "However, according to Dr Kersten, it is not as simple as that. "It is overly easy to make that kind of distinction," he said. "If you talk about Iran (where Shia are dominant), western opinion doesn't view them as the moderate type. Some of the language that comes out of Iran definitely doesn't fit that view. It is more political than anything else. Hezbollah, for example, represents a long-term repressed Shia minority - and they have certainly been becoming more beligerent. It would be overly easy to say Shias are more moderate than Sunnis. You can find extreme elements on both sides of the equation."

One can cavil over the way the word "moderate" is juxtaposed to the word "Shia", or about the meaning of the word "moderate". Sorry that you fail to see that this source uses the concepts. It will appear that you aren't convincing me, and I am not convincing you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, you are an excellent editor in good standing and with certainly a stronger contribution history than mine - and I absolutely mean that, and I apologize that perhaps my tone isn't as respectful as it should be - but I don't understand how you can say "It is about a schism and about the associated nomenclature" when the opening line of this article is "a moderate Shi'a is a term." We have an article about the schism and it's Shia–Sunni relations. This article is about a term which I allege is simply fake - even the sources you have don't use the term "Moderate Shia." It's like creating an article about "Awesome Atheists." I know many atheists are awesome for example, but that doesn't mean "Awesome Atheists" is a real term. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are not reliable sources. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of sources, and article has unverified claims. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a concept that should be discussed in the article on Shia Islam if anywhere. We shouldn't have "moderate", "radical" and "conservative" articles about religious movements in general, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My ignorance on the subject is profound, but one thing I can say is that this article, in its current form, does not help to lessen it. After reading it, I am still not sure whether the term 'Moderate Shia' is a description of a group in existence today or of a small, specific group of people alive in the seventh and eighth centuries. The lead seems to describe a Sunni term for the specific group of people, but the article later wanders into comparing how moderate Sunni and Shia are today in the 'Other views' section. The intervening section consists of 'Sunni views', a collection of longish quotes which are pretty nearly meaningless to anyone not intimately familiar with the subject, with no attempt to put them into context, describe what they mean to the subject or synthesize them into a coherent discussion; and 'Shi'a view', which is rather more comprehensible but entirely unsourced. My feeling is that this should be deleted - because a scholar search turns up no results indicating the second meaning ("the Salaf who loved Ali") and the first meaning is just "Shia who are also moderate." GoldenRing (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 09:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaya Ratan

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, also not any political background. Only a candidate of Aam Aadmi Party from Secunderabad. It's a promotional page which is created by Aam Aadmi Party-centric contributors. Prateek Malviya^Talk 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how it fails point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Since you are a self-professed supporter of BJP party from your user page, I did like to see independent and unbiased request for deletion as well as a clear refutal of point 3!Chandresh Prakash^Talk 17:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate for an office, these are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Chandresh Prakash Chaya Ratan has no significant coverage that's why I am nominate for deletion of this page. If any significant coverage for unelected candidate only then any politician (or person) is notable (see here). I think (If I am right) this is her first election. Also Naveen Jaihind's, who is candidate from Rohtak, page two time deleted by this reason (look this and this). Hope you Understand.Prateek Malviya^Talk 05:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Prakash, our rule on Wikipedia is that an unelected candidate for office is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — if you cannot make a credible case that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. And that rule is the same no matter what political party a person is associated with, so it doesn't matter whether she's running for the BJP, the AAP, the BSP or the Silly Party. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, there are some mentions of her prior to the campaign, but can't find anything that would clearcut establish notability. --Soman (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Raftopoulos

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

Delete for lack of notability. This article has been around since November 2011 with BLP sources and Notability tags added in December 2011 and no changes since then. While published, Brian Raftopoulos fails to have almost any coverage, much less substantial. He fails the general notability guidelines and fails to meet any of the academia options. Although the African Books Collective (and other book stores) repeat the publisher's blurb: a leading Zimbabwean scholar and activist, aside from his own works there is little to support that assessment. --Bejnar (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 21:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GS h-index of 18? passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Query for @Xxanthippe:: What/where are the "independent reliable sources" required by WP:Prof#C1?

Click on the scholar link 2 inches above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Since when is Google scholar a reliable source? Where is the discussion of his impact? --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- evidence of independent reliable sources can be seen in the high number of citations of the work that Xxanthippe has pointed out. The number would be high for the field in any case. Given the systematic bias against researchers in Africa, it's particularly notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mscuthbert: since when has systemic bias been a measure of notability? - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African journals are less likely to be indexed by indexing sites based in the US than US and European journals, suppressing h-indexes for scholars who work there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of those cases where WoS shows quite different results: 15 publications, 33 total cites, h-index 3. I think we should cease with any further discussion of "African bias" here. First, Raftopoulos seems to be a professor at University of the Western Cape, a large, modern institution in South Africa. Second, as far as the journals in which he has published according to WoS, none are "African". Rather, all are published by mainstream western concerns: J. South Af. Stud. and J East Af. Stud. are from Taylor & Francis, J. Hist. Soc. and Historian are from Wiley, African Affairs is an Oxford Journal, and J. Mod. Af. Stud. is a Cambridge Journal. Consequently, as far as resources and publishing outlets go, Raftopoulos does not seem to be at any disadvantage as compared to scholars in US, Europe, etc. and therefore should probably be judged by conventional standards. Agricola44 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's actually getting quite a few cites given the field he's publishing in. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I leaned towards a 'keep' close but there is sufficient disagreement as to whether WP:BASIC/WP:BLP1E apply that I can't quite call it a consensus. It seems clear to me that as long as we don't have a malicious motive publishing details of his legal trouble is not libel - however IANAL so remain open to correction. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Keith

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

Request via OTRS 2011121310011536 - This article deals mainly with the offence committed in 2007. In five days time this offence will be classed as spent under UK Law

(Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

1974 CHAPTER 53

An Act to rehabilitate offenders who have not been reconvicted of any serious offence for periods of years, to penalise the unauthorised disclosure of their previous convictions, to amend the law of defamation, and for purposes connected therewith.).

It will then become libellous to publish that information. Just to remove the conviction data would leave a very poor article that is unlikely to ever expand. Bit of a WP:BLP1E Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act situation has little currency for me as I am not beholden to British law (nor is Wikipedia in general), although, in the interests of accuracy, the law only forbids the publication of spent convictions with malice (which wouldn't apply here regardless). On the other hand, this is pretty much a canonical WP:BLP1E/WP:CRIME situation, unless there are some appropriate sources that I'm unable to find. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply here:

He is not a low-profile individual. He has given media interviews. For example Profile: Jeremy Keith

Reliable sources covered Mr. Keith in more than the context of a single event. His purchase of Derby County F.C., his involvement in the management of the club over the 2 1/2 years he was a director, and his legal difficulties were all covered by reliable sources.

Which aspect of WP:CRIME do you think is relevant?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide samples of the independent, reliable sources that nontrivially discuss this subject in other capacities? Of the sources currently cited in the article, all but two are related to the criminal charge. Of the remaining two, I see no reason to consider CompanyCheck a reliable source. The BBC is generally reliable, but the BBC link is a interview with the subject bereft of any analysis or commentary, and so is arguably not independent. My efforts to locate such sources were not successful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the BBC interview is not independent of the subject for the purposes of WP:BASIC? What do you mean by other capacities? Other than a defendant in the trial or other than an owner and director of Derby County?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Derby County F.C.; possible search term but no independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what should be done with the material in the Financial Irregularities section? It's not in the Derby County article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need including. Giant Snowman 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those events and the trial in particular received enough coverage to meet notability guidelines.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy or guideline that leads you to think that a person's notability must be independent of his association with an organization?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, WP:NOTINHERITED. Members of a notable organization are not, for example, inherently notable on their own. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's different from requiring a person's notability to be independent of his involvement with the organization. He would not be notable simply for being an owner and director of a notable football club. He's notable because he meets WP:BASIC.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The noms reason for deletion doesn't hold water. The individual, his work and offence is public knowledge. It will never be libel to publish it. Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be in the UK. The UK law regards this as a very minor crime (otherwise the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would not apply). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is nonsense. Such nonsense it makes me wonder if you have a conflict of interest regarding this article. Szzuk (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've no COI - I don't know the person, the only similarity is we are both in UK, and someone has to read the OTRS tickets! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Derby County F.C.. This seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E, as "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Outside of this event, he only received passing mentions in articles about Derby County. The BBC source doesn't establish notability because a) it's a single source and b) it's a local source. But, as GiantSnowman suggests, this could be a search term, so a redirect is appropriate. Moswento ^talky 08:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply. He doesn't meet the second condition of BLP1E. He was not a low-profile individual.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets WP:BASIC for coverage of his time as owner and director of Derby County (See:[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]) as well as for coverage of the trial.

Legal Wikipedia must adhere to United States law but does not try to follow the laws of all other countries. The laws of the UK are not a valid reason for deletion. Also Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) has explained that the British law only prohibits publication with malice, which doesn't apply.
BLP1E This policy does not apply to Mr. Keith because he was covered by reliable sources for more than a single event and he is not a low-profile individual.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BASIC. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the act referred to above means that once a conviction has been spent it can never be mentioned by anyone ever again, that's just nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:BASIC, end of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelcoin

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

Non-notable Litecoin fork. Citation Needed | Talk 11:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelcoin has been actively discussed among the Irish Tech community and the founder of Gaelcoin is confirmed to be lecturing about Crypto Currencies for the University of Limerick on the 17th of May. He is also a full board member of Bitcoin Ireland. Citation regarding the difficulty can be found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=506076.0 AntonieGeerts (talk 11:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet General Notability Guideline requirements; lacks significant coverage about the topic in multiple published reliable sources. AntonieGeerts, the founder's prominence, or even Gaelcoin's prominence, is immaterial here; what matters is coverage in published sources. "Notability" in this context refers to Wikipedia's very specific definition at WP:GNG, not the informal definition found in dictionaries. Agyle (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another published source https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfoHKL7Y.jpg&t=539&c=4mkGzExP_BF_gA Agyle Citation Needed AntonieGeerts (talk 09:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture. The article is behind a pay wall, but a search on gaelcoin reveals the article presence. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the first source with more than superficial coverage of the topic; a couple more like this would sway my opninion on GNG. The other sources I weigh more lightly; 3 have one sentence about Gaelcoin (Guardian, RT, Hindustan Times), and 3 have around half a dozen sentences. Agyle (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It has received a little attention, but I don't think it establishes enough notability for an article just yet. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Daily Business Post is a nice source, but seems to be the only significant source at the moment. The other sources are passing mentions, and I couldn't find anything further elsewhere. Moswento ^talky 12:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many reliable sources does an article need before it becomes notable? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, more than one. The Daily Business Post article does not establish notability on its own. Moswento ^talky 20:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely subjective, just like whether a source is reliable or not. Many editors don't require any independent sources. Personally, I weigh different sources differently, so there is no fixed numeric range, except like Moswento said, "more than one". Partly due to the basic GNG guidelines, and partly due to one of the reasons behind them: to ensure that there's enough reliable published material on a topic to write a decent article. I consider the reliability/strength of the source (e.g. peer-reviewed journal vs. borderline amateur blog), and the depth and uniqueness of the coverage (i.e. if 20 newspapers all essentially repeat a single press release from the company, I may weigh them very lightly, while others would consider that a slam-dunk for GNG). Agyle (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up regarding sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any reliable third party sources, much less significant coverage other than some blog entries and interviews with people associated with which won't let it pass WP:GNG. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Donetsk People's Republic. There seems to predominantly be consensus against keeping, but the form varies from outright deletion to deletion with redirect, flat-out redirect, and merge. Since the main basis of the deletion appears to be the article's primary subject being uncertain to happen (WP:CRYSTAL), it seems reasonable to round down to a redirect (which also gives the inherent option to merge). Should the event occur, that clears the way for the redirect to be undone and the article to exist again, as WP:CRYSTAL isn't about whether the event is, e.g., legitimate, legal, valid, appropriate for a seperate article, etc...; rather, those are seperate questions. Additional discussion would be needed to gain consensus on whether the article should then be deleted on merits besides CRYSTAL. Arguments pertaining to the current (and/or future) article's naming are more for requested moves or redirects for discussion. slakr^\ talk / 09:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk status referendum, 2014

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

There is no evidence that the referendum they called for will ever take place. There is no means for such a vote to be carried out and rebels only control 1 full city, and a few other buildings. This seems to be WP:CRYSTAL fortune telling. Propose deletion until it's concrete such a thing will happen, or if it happens (on a limited scale) if it requires its own page. Львівське (говорити) 05:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush to delete. The referendum is called for 11 May. If the referendum does not take place then, the article can then be deleted. Wikipedia can survive the transitory existence of this article for three weeks in that case. The previous post, with its mentioning that "rebels only control 1 full city", shows a clear political motivation for this deletion request, with the editor proposing deletion apparently thinking that Wikipedia should be turned into a propaganda vehicle for Ukrainian nationalist extremists. – Herzen (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your 'nationalist extremist conspiracy' rhetoric to a minimum, thanks. --Львівське (говорити) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually even canceled referenda are/can be notable. POV deletions based on supporting one side are not credible. In that case i support Herzen

Its also akin to Ccrimea

Also the credibility of the POV request is up for question , as Herzen says Lihaas (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth was the AfD a "POV request"? I only cited wikipedia policy, not personal interpretations or a partisan point of view. My issue that prompted the filing was entirely under the purview that this is theoretical and proposed, but not legitimately destined to happen. This content can still be kept on the DPR root article, and split when its evident that an article on a referendum is needed. --Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place WP:CRYSTAL. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable: RS sources have said it . Not definite till it takes palce: then why do we have all election articles before the election? Guideliens are not policy, btwLihaas (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all they have stated is that they 'want a referendum no later than may 11'. This is not definite to take place, it's a request made by some rebels who have no capacity whatsoever to carry out a state-wide vote. --Львівське (говорити) 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

READ the source, on the page the surce AFFIRMED it will take place now tht they want it. They wanted int 5 weeks ago, when the page was created the y said it WILL happen and are preparing g their election commission. Seems you just read the article title and got hyper-senseitive. vLihaas (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be hyper-sensitive that your article about a fictional referendum got AfD'd... --Львівське (говорити) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did read the source and I see a lot of planning, preparing, presentation to Donetsk officials and so forth but I see not single one mention of anything that WILL happen or is AFFIRMED to happen, regardless of whether we write it in caps lock or not. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We do not yet know if this will take place for certain, the pro Russian group does not have full control over the Donetsk Oblast for example so how would this be carried out? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. As was already mentioned, this group does not have control over Donetsk oblast or Donetsk city itself as can be seen from continuous work of RSA administration appointed by Kiev, which just moved to another building, and also City hall. In terms of cities, the full control of exercised only in Slavyansk and partial in Krematorsk and few other towns, encircling much less than even 10 percent of population by the Oblast. This is attempted copy of Aksyonov - Crimea situation but it is not one. Not one at this very moment with no indication that this is supposed to change. If situation changes or if Oblast towns will carry out the referendum, despite the disagreement of central government like in Gagazuia it can be restored. Not until.

PS: Let´s not get into name calling such as Ukrainian nationalist extremists. Especially when the one who opened this delete request is Ukrainian and the one using these terms is Russian. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a relevant section in the Donetsk People's Republic article. I don't think the article should be kept for the reasons listed above (specifically the violation of WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that it is doubtful that the referendum will actually take place). The only reason I'm not voting delete is so that on the off-chance the referendum actually does take place, someone can recreate this page from the page history instead of rewriting it from scratch.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think redirecting is a good idea for the reasons Spirit stated (that it can be restored if needed in the future)--Львівське (говорити) 23:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say redirect but am not sure that the title is the common name for the proposed event, as in who is going to type in "Donetsk status referendum"? I could see "Donetsk referendum" being a more likely search term as that generates more results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the name. If we want a name change, we could propose having the closing admin rename the article. Alternatively, someone could always just boldly rename it to Donetsk referendum after the redirect has occurred. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP guideline quoted by Ali-al-Bakuvi and cited by others here. Wikipedia is not the news media and should not get ahead of itself. Especially should not attempt to CREATE news. Paavo273 (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can use exactly the same argument to say that the article Government of Ukraine should be deleted. No Ukrainian Government currently exists: (1) governments are only called "governments" as opposed to regimes if they are legitimate, and the current Kiev regime clearly is not legitimate because the proper Constitutional procedure was not followed to remove the legitimately elected president, and because the new cabinet was assembled on the basis of representing the groups that were used to storm government buildings to overturn the legal government; (2) the Kiev regime cannot disarm the armed group Right Sector or even force it to leave government buildings in Kiev which it continues to occupy; (3) the Kiev regime has no control over vast swaths of Ukrainian territory, especially in the southeast. It is possible that a legitimate, functional Ukrainian government will be restored at some point in the future, but it is equally possible that the Ukraine will just cease to exist. Thus, the article Government of Ukraine has exactly the same grounds for deletion as the article which is here being proposed for deletion. – Herzen (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then request that page for deletion and let's discuss it there. Government of Ukraine exists (illegal or legal, is just POV), but this article is about what they want to do in future. WP:OSE. Please, read, Wikipedia guidelines. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing your own bias and POV into the discussion is not going to help you. Your views about Ukrainian government or this referendum interest no one per WP:NPOV. Sources do matter. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is completely invalid. If you were to nominate the Government of Ukraine page for deletion with the criteria you listed, the page would be speedily kept and you would probably be sanctioned for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF; the approach taken on another article is a non-argument as regards determining whether this article is consistent with policy, a determination which must be made on the merits of this particular case alone. Snow (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - There is no crystal balling here and we always create articles about tournaments, festivals and "non notable" elections, sometimes months or even years before they take place. I'm also tired of the way some editors like to rush things up like that for no obvious reason, except for apparently not liking a topic. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:CRYSTAL is Wikipedia policy, and it directly states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The reason that future elections in nations such as, say, the United States get future articles is because the US has a central government capable of conducting elections, so they are almost certain to take place (and even if they don't, that fact is notable in and of itself because it is probably indicative of a major disaster or regime change). Donetsk consists of a couple of occupied buildings while the majority of the area is still in Ukranian control. It is highly doubtful that they will be able to carry out this referendum, and if they fail to do so then it isn't notable as it would just amount to a failed nnouncement. This (in addition to general notability concerns) is justification for a delete (or a redirect, see above).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It's very unlikely that the referendum will take place in current conditions, while policy specifically says that the event needs to be **almost certain**. SkywalkerPL (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment How is one to say it is fictional when RS sources have cited it? Was crimea a fiction befor it happened? Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that this is fictional, it has been mentioned that part is a fact but it is WP:CRYSTAL right now to say that it will be carried through for a number of reasons mentioned above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a real and notable proposed event. It might seem unlikely that Donetsk People's Republic will manage to hold this referendum, but it's WP:CRYSTAL to delete this article based on currently perceived likelihood of this referendum actually taking place. (And please, refrain from WP:IDONTLIKEIT-motivated arguments. Deletion of an article doesn't magically cause its subject to become less real.) Feon {^t/_c} 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its not, as WP:CRYSTAL page says that Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.. Which, as you agreed, is not the case. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Future events that get articles are generally so notable that the event will still warrant an article even if it is never held. For example, we always create articles about the Olympic games before they open. This is because even canceled Olympic games, such as the 1944 Summer Olympics, are notable enough for an article, so we know the upcoming games are guaranteed to meet notability requirements. In the probable event that this referendum never occurs, will it warrant an article? If your answer is no, then it doesn't deserve an article. Crystal does not state that we should create articles about any subject that might potentially become notable in the future. To the contrary, if you click the link you'll see that it pretty much states the exact opposite of my earlier sentence. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, for the present time, to Donetsk People's Republic, which can easily accommodate and contextualize the the information, and where it is likely to be of most use to our readers at the present time anyway. It's not policy-consistent to operate under the prediction that the subject will develop enough to justify a stand-alone article. The information is certainly worth preserving and is decently sourced, but not all information that is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia constitutes a need for a separate article space. A few weeks will suffice to tell us what develops of this situation and until then the cohesiveness and accuracy of our coverage will benefit from not rapidly spinning out articles on the basis of uncertain developments in the very chaotic and rapidly moving events of these circumstances. Snow (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect if anything it should be mentioned in Donetsk People's Republic article but right now it certainly isn't notable enough to get it's own article (and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) SkywalkerPL (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - following the recent announcement that the referendum ballots are already in print and that enough of them will be produced to cover all 3.2 million registered voters [28]. Óðinn (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that an unnamed activist claimed than an order of 3.2 million ballots had been sent to a local print shop. A mock ballot has been created (which is something that anyone with Microsoft Word can create in a manner of minutes), but they do not currently have the 3.2 million ballots on hand nor an explanation of how they will conduct a referendum in an area that is still, to a greater or lesser extent, under Ukrainian control. While the source is good, I don't think its enough to meet the "nearly certainly going to happen" criteria of Crystal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is not merely expressed by an activist, it is confirmed by the official, responsible for organizing the referendum. While it certainly is true that the DPR does not controll all of its claimed territory, neither does Syria, yet no one doubts that the upcoming presidential election there is notable. Óðinn (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really analogous situations at all; there's little doubt that the Syrian presidential election will proceed, but in any event, it's notability is already established by existing sources which treat the subject in a wide variety of contexts, relevance which will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the election ever actually occurs. What you are suggesting with regard to this article is the use of a source about a trivial aspect of the the subject to prognosticate that other sources sufficient to establish the notability and proper encyclopedic context for this referendum will exist. And we can't know that yet. Snow (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian government: controls about half of its claimed territory, while fighting a brutal civil war; little doubt over its ability to hold the election. DPR: controls about half of its claimed territory, no civil war yet; ability to hold the referendum in serious doubt. Clearly, this is a very strange argument to make. Here is another source, where one of the DPR's leader calls the referendum "inevitable": [29]. Óðinn (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syria has effective control over all of the institutions needed to hold an election and a great deal of the territory the government controls is under their effective occupation (meaning no significant rebel activity threatens their control). Donetsk controls several government buildings and checkpoints (which is nowhere close to the 50% of the territory you claimed), all of which are being or are liable to quickly be contested by the Ukrainian government and military before the May 11 referendum. They do not have control over the institutions needed to hold such an election. The two entities are incomparable. Plus, the Syrian election has gotten so much coverage and political reactions that it will be notable whether or not it is actually held. This does not apply with the status referendum Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last point, the most cursory of searches yields dozens of reliable sources on the referendum. Regarding your claim about DPR controlling "a few buildings and checkpoints"... Seriously?.. Then why did Ukraine's de-facto president just admitted to having lost control of not only Donetsk, but Lugansk as well [30]? Your prognostications about the Ukrainian army pouring in en masse are currently not supported by any sources. They couldn't even capture a single city. Óðinn (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a reference to controlling the situation in general, not the entire provinces --Львівське (говорити) 23:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an exercise in doublethink? You can't lose control in general, have the whole region referred to as a "separatist fiefdom" and still claim some authority on the ground. Óðinn (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they can't stop the violence doesn't mean the separatists actively control the regions and their infrastructure and institutions. The statement was solely on the policing situation. AFAIK they only control Sloviansk and Kramatorsk in their entirety (the former being blockaded), and other cities have buildings occupied but not city-wide control.--Львівське (говорити) 17:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this article still fails the "almost certain to take place" criteria of WP:CRYSTAL. This very article even says as much, stating "It is far from clear how any referendum can be held". I've also analyzed a news source further down that discusses why the referendum is unlikely to happen. In the end, I agree that this event is somewhat notable as its gotten some amount of coverage in the news. However it is better covered in the Donetsk article (which currently covers the referendum quit nicely) until such a point in time where the referendum will clearly be held. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Donetsk People's Republic. So far there have been no preparations, no institutions to carry out the referendum have been activated and this holds value only as a statement made by the DPR. If they do hold a referendum (which is highly unlikely by 11 May), it can easily be split from the DPR article. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the regime in Kiev continues to lose control of the situation, this referendum is gaining more traction. The referendum is being discussed at length in today's wrap-up article in the Guardian [31] and its preparations have been covered by additional sources: ITAR-TASS [32], Christian-Science Monitor [33], The Hindu [34] --Tocino 10:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The usage of expressions like "regime in Kiev" shows the editors political affiliation and non-neutral position in the question. Besides, from the given sources only Guardian can be considered as a reliable and neutral source; and in Guardian referendum is not discussed in length, but rather mentioned in the context of the general Ukrainian Crisis. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Christian Science Monitor contains these statements: "Despite largely uniform calls for a referendum on "federalization" of Ukraine,the anti-Kiev protesters now occupying government buildings across the restive Donbas region in eastern Ukraine don't appear to have a plan for how to bring that about" and "And because of a lack of governmental infrastructure and a dearth of the expertise to enact the necessary logistics, their goals appear to be out of reach". The entire article states very clearly that there is serious doubt that the referendum will take place. This does not met the "nearly certain to happen" requirement of Crystal. To the contrary, this entire article is about how the referendum fails that policy. While I agree that this is notable enough for inclusion in the Donetsk article(and it already gets covered there, hence my redirect vote) due to some news coverage, the fact that they are attempting to hold a referendum does not warrant an article unless it is clear that it will almost certainly take place. As no one in the republic can explain how they will conducting holding the referendum, a redirect is a good decision. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the referendum has been agreed on: ("Do you support the creation of the Donetsk People's Republic?") [35] and polling stations are already being prepared:[36] and with pro-Kiev forces nowhere in sight, it's becoming clear that this referendum will be held, questions of legitimacy and how successful it will be with the wider population aside. --Tocino 08:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording doesn't matter in terms of notability, as anyone can create a ballot given access to Microsoft Word and 15 minutes of time. What matters is whether the referendum can actually be held. Most of the news I've seen on the referendum raises serious doubts as to whether it will take place for the reasons I've listed above. The Voice of Russia is the Russian governments official news station, which I'm hesitant to count as reliable due to some severe conflicts of interest. If you think that I'm just being irrational, then please show me non-Russian sources stating the referendum will almost certainly occur (this is needed to meet the diversity of source requirement for notability anyways) Otherwise, this referendum is more than adequately covered in the article on Donetsk Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is getting completely out of hand, the suggested date is two weeks away and with no real control, money, or jurisdiction, some separatist authorities plan on holding a referendum? WP:CRYSTAL this. § DDima 04:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate We should be careful to avoid confusing this proposed referendum with the successful 25 March referendum. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Douglas

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

Not a notable actor. JDDJS (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable but I must point out that there are a lot of acting-related articles which are as non-notable or even more so. All should be treated fairly. Quis separabit? 16:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor. I would agree we have lots of articles on such, but we have to start somewhere, and AFD is not good at mass nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Quis separabit? 19:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Oakley Anderson

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

Browse around and all you'll find is genealogical information, and the usual findagrave stuff. Person was a midshipman in the operation, so there seems to be no "inherent" notability. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. BMK (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. There are many fine tombstones in cemeteries around the world, and an article has to based on more than an epitaph. Johnuniq (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Bali88 (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge to somewhere? Ideally someone should go and look at his papers. :) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

What papers? BMK (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer "notable" only for involvement in a single event in which many others were also involved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Beyond My Ken: His papers, the location of which was mentioned in the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 30 April 2014 (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 no consensus. Additionally, discussion regarding a merge or renaming can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC GAMESS

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: a PROD was removed with the edit summary "I think that merge is a better option", but no indication where it might be merged. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak keep. There are a surprisingly large number of these computational chemistry software packages (at least from the perspective of someone not a computational chemist!). Several of them began as GAMESS (which, here, is basically a disambiguation page); it forked into GAMESS (UK) and GAMESS (US). This software is a fork of the latter. Some sources do consider them separately. All three variants are given separate treatment in Springer's Handbook of Computational Chemistry, Volume 2, with a several page discussion of this family of programs (pp.614-617). But I'm uncertain whether there is sufficient material to justify all 3 (+disambiguation) articles, or whether we should merge this one back to GAMESS (US) or whether we should merge the whole lot of them back to GAMESS. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general comment about all three programs, but first I want to say that this article, if kept, should be moved to Firefly (computer program) as I suggested on the talk page last year. The program is no longer called PC GAMESS. The three programs are quite different. While GAMESS (UK) and GAMESS (US) have a common origin, they are quite different. There are no similarities in the input or output files or the use of disk storage. Much of what the user sees in GAMESS (UK) comes from a program called ATMOL which was developed in the UK in the 1960s. GAMESS (US) shows none of this influence. Firefly is very much like GAMESS (US) as far as the user is concerned but a great deal of the code has been rewritten. In terms of notability all three have quite a few independent sources, but there will be more for GAMESS (US). Reference 1 in GAMESS (US) is just one of several books that discusses the program. All three of course are mentioned in research papers, but there are references in review articles and books. If a merge is needed, it could be to GAMESS which is currently a disambiguation page. It could be changed to an article on all three but with links to GAMESS (US) and GAMESS (UK) for more detail on those programs. I have no firm opinion at this point. I have worked extensively with both GAMESS (US) and GAMESS (UK) and have used Firefly. I am also an author of a program that is now distributed with GAMESS (US), so I may have a conflict of interest although my program is not mentioned in the article. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to GAMESS (US), which is a clearly related piece of software. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Consensus is clearly for a merger, but where to merge to? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (moving to Firefly (computer program)). Sources exist, as noted above (e.g. the Handbook of Computational Chemistry). It might be useful to merge all three articles into one (GAMESS), but that question would be better handled with merge tags. Personally, I think the current set of three related articles is the best solution. -- 101.117.2.39 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Peter Hewitt (director). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonder (film)

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

Film has not entered main production, does not meet WP:NFF, would recommend a redirect to Peter Hewitt, attached director. BOVINEBOY2008 13:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Hewitt (director) per nom. No reliable sources found. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Hewitt (director). Main production doesn't seem to have started, and consequently sources are few and speculative. Plausible search term, though, so a redirect would be appropriate. Moswento ^talky 08:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Amanda Lear discography. No argument advanced for standalone notability. The merge chosen here does not preclude appropriate inclusion of merged material into Back in Your Arms, that can be decided through normal editorial processes on the relevant talk page. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made of Blood & Honey

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources found for this compilation; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 16:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - the album is notable for featuring four previously unreleased recordings.1000MHz (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The album is listed on AllMusic - a credible, respected music data base and reviews site.1000MHz (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@1000MHz: AllMusic doesn't make the album notable. See, Wikipedia notbaility guideline for albums. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NALBUMS, compilations are not always notable and this one lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources required to be notable. STATic message me! 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Amanda Lear discography. Not appropriate for a standalone article but we can probably still integrate the content somewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Amanda Lear discography. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge into Amanda Lear discography. Merge into Back in Your Arms as Made of Blood & Honey largely revisits material from that album. 1000MHz (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, but the compilation album also has content that was originally released on three other albums. This would lend undue weight to the topic within the context of being existent in the Back in Your Arms article, in my opinion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyari

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No references and seems only to be mentioned on dogbreedinfo.com, a WP:SPS. Not recognised as a "breed" by any Kennel Clubs. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we deleted all articles lacking any source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, a simple Google search would seem to indicate that this is a real breed. I expect that there are sources, but that they are mostly in Urdu (which I don't speak). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

WP:GNG requires reliable sources, so just finding sources in Google does not establish notability. I agree, it seems like a real breed, but there's no reliable info to base an article on. That's one of the purposes of Wikipedia's notability requirement. Agyle (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any reliable sources that mention either "bhagyari" (as dogs; it is a location) or "Pakistani shepherd dog". I didn't find it in any books, scholarly journals, or pop periodicals. Some websites contain information (1 2 3 4), and they are listed for sale on Pakistani websites (1 2), but these aren't reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Bhavesh Joshi. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh Joshi

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

Unreferenced WP:NFF, tagged as such for many months. DMacks (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is an addressable issue and not cause for deletion, specially when a topic is not unsourcable. Heck... just 4 days ago Times of India reported a casting change,[37] and they reported on casting last month as well,[38] as did Indian Express.[39] I suggest we userfy it to draftspace with talk page instruction on WP:NYF and WP:NFF. Yes, sources are available to verify the topic, but the major problem is that they do not give us enough pervasive and enduring coverage to merit being a possible exception to WP:NFF under its paragraph 3. The author can be counseled as to just when a return to article space makes sense. In the meanwhile, it can be written of and sourced in the director's article at Vikramaditya Motwane. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Although I can find and verify some reliable sources as mentioned by User:MichaelQSchmidt, it does not qualify WP:NFF. Harsh (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to draftspace per the rationale of User:MichaelQSchmidt above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMEAP

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

Company does not appear to be significant in any way. No notable references. Possible vanity article. Shritwod (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company does appear to be significant

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in RS sources. The OpenSource.com is an incidental mention and does not establish notability. A search did not reveal any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had a look. Seems to be a professional and determined lot, making an enterprise cross-platform mobile development tool-set, using HTML 5, CSS and Javascript and native distribution and deployment tools with a decent license. I had a search of the firmament, and there is <10 of these types of software manufacturers. Curiously of the big three, only Mono is covered with an article with HP and IBM's product missing. I think the article provides good encyclopedic knowledge, even for comparison, and especially for this type of dev. tool, a type which kicked off around 2010/2011 --still new but where all the money is. I think it's worth keeping. I know it's short of secondary references, but as numerous people have explained including myself, development companies and software may be critically important, but have a low surface presence on the firmament, but still pass WP:GNG. If we delete this, sooner or later all the entries in Mobile application development will be gone, and mobile app dev. will be eviscerated on WP from a company perspective.scope_creep talk 21:19 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: While relistings are normally limited to two instances, the arguments in the keep !vote above make a third relisting appropriate. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Plenty of other entries on Mobile application development do have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Moswento ^talky 08:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A company can be very professional and determined, but it doesn't make them notable. I wasn't able to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Additionally, the notion to merge can be discussed on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aapas ki Baat

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

Not Notable. The sources provided are about the host, not the television program. Fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 01:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should not be deleted because their is a need for this article to ease readers who want search for Pakistani Media.As this article is not related any personality but is an airing show which gained alot of popularity it should remain.This show is a popular existing show of [Geo News]1 this article also provide coverage to pakistani [Media] and [tv] and is also related with its famous host Mr [Najam Sethi]. Their are more references i have added about it schedule,Popularity,show format.i have added new souce,citation now this article should not be deleted. ::Note: this unsigned !vote above is from Ali.wali.4550 — Ali.wali.4550 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what Flat Out says, and the fact that the article is a poorly written orphan. G S Palmer (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article now because, now i have completely edited the article the material regard analyst and anchor have been removed and material about show ,its format,and history have added with sources and refrences --Ali.wali.4550 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)— Ali.wali.4550 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment you added POV, original research and information on ratings/reception that was supported with unreliable sources, which have been removed. Please read WP:42 Flat Out let's discuss it 10:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not the venue to solve cleanup issues. this is clearly notable, a quick google search confirms it. it's a show airing regularly on one of the largest TV networks of a country with 182 million inhabitants. You do the math. --Soman (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Geo News, which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft), presumably pending reliable sources demonstrating notability. slakr^\ talk / 09:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Hanford

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No indication at all of notability. I declined PROD as the reason given was not a valid deletion argument. Safiel (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not obviously non-notable, but someone is going to have to do a lot more than has been done (e.g. identify some significant third-party sources) to show notability. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe turn into a redirect to Magnatune? - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would probably not even be useful as a redirect. Safiel (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Finnegas (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyan Thiboutot

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

"Script doctor" whose article is referenced exclusively to IMDb credits, and offers not a whit of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he actually passes any of our notability rules. Furthermore, to all appearances the article was written by the subject himself, making it a WP:COI-violating attempt at self-promotion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SNUGGUMS. Steam5 (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Brown (artist)

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

meets neither WP:PROF nor WP:CREATIVE DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice against future recreation) -- it's an impressive resume, and definitely an above average amount of coverage, awards, and positions for an artist at this stage in her career. The stage of the career, however, requires even more for a keep under WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE, and I don't see the GNG passing either. I suspect that the career will continue to a point where 5 years from now the article can be kept with proper citations, etc. so I don't want a delete vote to prejudice against a clean reassessment later. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. MSC summarized the case well. Agricola44 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Orchard Hills Estate

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

housing estate, presumably, below notability Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability made. Bazonka (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingswood, New South Wales. No reason it can't be mentioned in the parent article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unreferenced term. Oppose redirect as there are several at least 2 orchard hills localities in the world. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that call for disambiguation? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sumon (Aurthohin)

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 11:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, sources - [40], [41], [42].--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG and WP:BIO don't fail. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 15:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per Zayeem. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kmzayeem, Seems to now pass GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurthohin

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 11:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Enough references, [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In fact there are enough references. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 15:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aurthohin is one of the most popular bands in Bangladesh. --Aftab1995 (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aftab1995 & User:Kmzayeem. One of the leading musical group of Bangladesh. -- ~ Nahid ^Talk 17:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Athletic Association

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

Non-notable short lived boxing organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about a defunct boxing organization that someone created so he could name his son a world champion. No notability is shown in the article. Papaursa (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil conflict in the Philippines

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

Appears to be original research, was created over a redirect by a sock and the factual accuracy of this article is highly doubted. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep:: The article doesn't make many assertions, it does cite references, and does not have {{cn}}, {{fv}} {{or}} tags pointing up assertions needing better support. I don't find any discussion about this on the article's talk page. I have a concern about WP:DATED in re the article name, and I will probably raise that concern if the article survives this AFD request, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: The topic of the article is legit. There are sources like the BBC article which mention both the Moro insurgency and the Communist NPA insurgency in the same contexts. The conflicts are definitely connected. There are sources on Gaddafi supplying and coordinating both the Communist NPA and Moro insurgents at Talk:Mathaba_News_Agency.Rajmaan (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - stubs created by an invalid sockpuppet can be deleted speedily, but proverbally, "even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day". In this case, Rajmaan located two sources that prove a ocnnection, without any original research nor even illogical synthesis. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the merits alone. The Philippines has been dealing with insurgencies since 1969, and I am of the opinion that it deserves an umbrella article. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Government of Arkansas

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

There's not really sufficient context here to identify the subject of the article, and I can't really find any sources to support the claims within. Lack of notability. Ducknish (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion As you have said, it does not seem to have any sources which support it. May be a hoax. ~ Anastasia (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete lack of coverage in reliable sources. I agree that this is a likely hoax, on the basis that it was authored by an editor named "PresidentBennett", and their CrowdFundFusion page has received $0.00 of their $10,000 target. Moswento ^talky 08:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dream sharing

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a dictionary definition, nothing more. Dream sharing is sharing (as in telling people about) dreams. And, er, that's it. We already deleted it once, but the deleted content is different, that was about a fictional situation where people have the same dream. Is dreamcruft a thing? Guy (Help!) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was really expecting to agree with the nominator here. But there's surprisingly a lot of sources available on this topic, including articles in scholarly journals: Dreaming[49][50], Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy[51], American Journal of Psychology[52]; and books published by recognized publishing houses: [53], [54] and so forth. The current article is ... not good, but isn't so bad as to break out the TNT. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a worthwhile independant topic. First Afd was very clear. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does seem to be a worthwhile independent topic, as the sources identified by Squeamish Ossifrage demonstrate. "Dream sharing" has been the subject of scholarly discussion in multiple peer-reviewed journals, as well as in books, and has academic value in terms of psychology and anthropology, amongst other things. Moswento ^talky 08:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as found here in Google Books. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks to be sufficient sources to pass GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Bellman

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

Page contains no citations at all, and makes claims that it explicitly states cannot be substantiated (the "Jewish mother" part). While the advertising campaign was memorable, this isn't a particularly good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragglet (talk • contribs) 14:53, 14 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Yes, there are no results in G.Books, with about 7.2k results in google, I don't think that the subject would be notable. OccultZone (Talk) 08:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced Stuartyeates (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco-Haifa Sister City Committee

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

Potentially significant, but a promotional article for some quite minor events, with extensive quotes from all the various public figures involved, all of whom are good at getting PR. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is well sourced and the subject is noteworthy. Reading through the article, its "promotional" issue is relatively minor and should be addressed on the talk page. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has many references, but they are not impressive. The only media source is local and parochial, the Northern California Jewish Weekly; that's four references, but from a single source, and WP:ORG requires multiple sources. The rest of the references are to things like press releases, county enactments, calendar announcements, the obituary of a key founder, etc. I could not find anything significant about this organization from more broad-based Reliable Sources in a search. As for "notable", San Francisco has 18 sister cities and most cities have a comparable number; I was unable to find ANY sister city relationship whose committee has an article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Some of the cited sources don't even mention this subject. This is a marketing piece that does not comport with Wikipedia's standards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Doolittle

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

Run of the mill non notable minor league player. Fails WP:Athlete and WP:GNG. Also not notable enough for a re-direct Yankees10 22:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as Yankees10 says, not even notable enough for a re-direct. Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players, as is standard practice. Alex (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Northern Antarctica - non notable player fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rounded up to delete, given concerns of WP:COPYVIO, too. Whether or not Davey's comment included a typo would help more clearly demonstrate consensus, but it makes sense to assume it is, given the rationale coincides with the rationale given by the nominator and others. slakr^\ talk / 10:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Herbal Extract Granules

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

Article about a specific product, little to no third-party coverage - fails to establish notability, borderline advert. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator without an explanation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional article that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Procedure section in this article is a close paraphrase of this page; were the article to survive, most of its text would require deletion. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is actually a badly entitled and poorly written generic article. It really has nothing to do with being an advertisement. The article details one type of modern commercial preparation of traditional Chinese herbal remedies. It needs extensive rewriting, and additional sources. The weak in my keep is because I am not sure whether or not it would be better deleted and the appropriate article started from scratch. --Bejnar (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & DGG - The article does read more like an article than an encyclopedic article, Plus fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG hasn't commented here, is this the AfD you meant to comment on? --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SME (formerly the Society of Manufacturing Engineers)

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

I was not able to establish the notability of this society. The previous version of the article was a copyvio from the SME website. I stabified it and started to look for independent sources. I was not able to find any, despite a large number of Google hits (mostly student societies reprinting info from the official website) Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Agree on the difficulty of finding any independent WP:RS. However, 18040 hits in Worldcat and about 19900 on Scholar suggest that this is a notable organisation that keeps its head down. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Justlettersandnumbers. --do ncr am 02:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination due to obvious single-purpose account activity. slakr^\ talk / 10:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AskHOW India

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

Not notable Shyamsunder (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google finds just a couple of possibly reliable sources with more than passing mentions ([55], [56]), but only barely more than passing. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the citations are from reliable sources Andrianfree (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the only edit of this new user. Shyamsunder (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article describes an important movement in India.--Karthi.dr (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the entry. This is a bottoms up independent movement of citizens of India. Recently widely covered in the top 3 English newspapers in India - Times of India (#1 circulation in India), Hindustan Times #2, The Hindu #3. --Bharathivisw (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)— Bharathivisw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you show us where the first two of these publications have covered it? Google finds nothing for Times of India. For Hindustan Times, it finds [57], [58], [59]. I may be mistaken, but these all look to me like instances of AskHow India providing content, not being reported on. I do find what look like three decent mentions in The Hindu: [60], [61], [62]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India_by_readership

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep subject seems notable enough. Apart from this, the movement has received quite a bit of coverage by the press in relation to the elections in India. However, most sources which I could find from Google Search (I haven't looked very closely, though) seemed to have the same wording as the article in the Hindu, which leads me to believe that most of them were copied from the same article. —₡lockery ₣airfeld ₰ 11:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As pointed above the Hindu references are pretty credible. Here is another independent reference fro Indian Express http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/for-the-people-by-the-techies/99/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshmalviya1601 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Rajeshmalviya1601 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep An extremely informative forum with a strong R&D base. The information that is made available from this website, it credible, and seems notable like similar movements in the policy space in India. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jJhsWvWFBuA shows them sharing the same platform as Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Parliamentary Research Services (PRS), NDTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.86.162 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great forum that pulls citizens, and especially the youth, into the process of cleaning up and maintaining correct systems of law, governance and others in the country and urges the youth to play a part in this process by asking the right questions based on a sound understanding of issues. AskHowInida features in articles in The Hindu (http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/ask-how-for-change/article5788479.ece), The Indian Express (timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/A-Tell-Me-How-for-Indian-citizens/articleshow/33303187.cms) as stated above, and is actively involved in this process of empowering citizens with the right information on matters of local and national significance. People should be made more aware of this forum to which they can look to to understand national issues and understand their role in it better. Keeping this entry on Wikipedia is, therefore, crucial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.54.33 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwo Odukoya

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

Voted one of the 12 most inspiring leaders is not notability, ,and the rest of the material is on the same order. DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After reading the article. I don't see a reason to keep it. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article, it seems to me, meets the notability criteria (WP:BIO). It does contain reliable secondary sources. And in a country like Nigeria, where religious institutions have become another money making venture, it is notable to find a Christian leader known for making social and economic contributions to improve the lives of people within his community. "Voted one of the 12 most inspiring leaders" in a country of over 170 million people does sound like notability to me. I remember making minor contributions to this article and quite agree that it is an orphan article and needs one or two article links. That can be done. Let's keep this article. 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Kenneth Azino

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All I can say is that to the best of my knowledge (which I believe is the view of many that really knows him) the only major thing notable about this man is the notability of his first wife. The reason why most African media houses would interview him and write articles about him is because of his wife. If notability can be transferred I can say his wife transferred some to him. lol Darreg (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: If possible it should be merged or incorporated into the Bimbo Odukoya article. If a merger is not possible it should be deleted. Darreg (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, the external links seem to lend some proof of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwisebaba (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP* Nigeria is the biggest black nation on earth and emerging amongst the 12 most inspiring leaders certainly deserves a place in wikipedia. Lets keep this article. abiods2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.86.153.195 (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acquaint yourself with WP:GNG and WP:BIO and you would agree with me that he does not REALLY deserve a place on Wikipedia. Even the ranking you are citing is not from a very reputable platform. I am not a novice about the subject in anyway so I know what I am saying. until several reliable citations can talk about the subject independently (about Taiwo and not about his wife Bimbo) and show relevance I think it does not really meet Wiki guidelines. Darreg (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwo Odukoya meets the notability criteria (WP:BIO) in every way. There are indeed secondary sources in this article about the man himself and not his wife. Taiwo Odukoya heads one of the leading churches in Nigeria (over 8,000 members strong) and makes incredible social contributions such as building orphanages, adopting schools, a hospital for the less privileged, a vocational training school etc. All of these have been duly referenced in this article. @Darreg the notability of Pastor Taiwo Odukoya transcends the notability of his late wife, Bimbo Odukoya, a woman who seized every opportunity to let the world know her husband was the main thrust behind her ministry. The man contributes a weekly column on leadership and nation-building and a fortnightly column on reputable Nigerian platforms, both of which are widely read and respected by Nigerians. It would be a great disservice to Wikipedia to lose this article.Kenneth Azino (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened the link that was cited in his philanthropic activities, and the entire article was talking about Philanthropy in Christendom in general and not exclusively about him. His name was mentioned ONCE in the entire article and only 2 lines of text was about him in the entire article. I have nothing against him and if you can give me at least 1 more link to a notable Nigerian Newspaper or website (at least) like this one that talks about him as the major subject I would reconsider my position and add my vote for the article to be kept. Darreg (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also add, if we are to go by your rule about providing social amenities and constructing facilities in communities then about 75% of all Nigerian pastors' will be on wikipedia because they all do that.

What I believe should differentiate them is SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE and that is what I am waiting for you to provide because I can find only one in the entire article. Darreg (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the issue here is this: Is Taiwo Odukoya worthy of notice? [WP:BIO]. The church wields undeniable influence in Nigeria and few clergy men stand out in this regard for their reputed integrity, popularity and contributions to the community, and Taiwo Odukoya is one of them. The impact of the Single and Married ministry, instituted by Pastor Taiwo Odukoya, and ran by his late wife, Bimbo Odukoya, is unarguably widespread, not mentioning initiatives like Discovery for Men and Women, or weekly articles on leadership and relationship building that are keenly followed on the Guardian, Premium Times, Daily Independent, and BellaNaija, reputable Nigerian Media platforms by any standard. [WP:BASIC] makes it clear that if depth of coverage is not established by one single source then multiple sources can be combined to demonstrate notability and i believe this is what this article has done in several respects. You requested for one more link in the article with Taiwo Odukoya as a major subject, i'll give you four: this [63] speaks directly to his philanthropy as this [64], while this speaks on family [65] just as this [66] @Darreg I totally understand and appreciate your point. But take a second look. Cheers :)Kenneth Azino (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I would expect the senior pastor of a church of 8000 people would be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search of Nigerian sources "Taiwo Odukoya" site:.ng brings up enough evidence for me that this is a notable person in Nigeria. -- GreenC 04:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 10:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JobServer

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

Article about a Java application that does not meet the general notability guideline. Current references are blogs, forums, or do not mention the application at all. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. With the exception of the jaxenter.com ref, current refs are blogs, authored by software's developer, or incidental mentions - not sufficient coverage to establish notability. A search turns up no further RS coverage. Article was created by a SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous Saturday

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

May not be notable per WP:TVSHOW, and likely fails general WP:N. Additionally, I can't seem to locate any reliable sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, programme was real (see here), although only two episodes seem to have been produced. SBS is a national television network so it seems it would meet WP:TVSHOW, but I can't find any reliable sources of substance to describe it, so it might not meet the WP:GNG. Will have to think about this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- On further consideration and after looking for sources only to draw a blank, I'm going to go with saying this doesn't meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the relevant part of WP:TVSHOW here is "a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." The only thing I can find is this from the TV Tonight blog, which is definitely not enough to establish notability. The programme is recent enough that if there were other media reviews, they would be easy enough to pick up through a quick search. Moswento ^talky 08:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are a multitude of options here, but at this time there is no consensus regarding the article's fate. I recommend that this productive discussion continue on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage site

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

Disclaimer: a redirect proposed by me as a part of a larger renaming proposal outlined at Talk:National_heritage_site#Requested_move was declined. I am now taking this unreferenced stub to AfD for the following reasons: 1) per WP:V unreferenced content can be subject to deletion. While they are plenty of sources for the use of term "heritage site", I cannot find any proper source that differentiates it from "historic site" or the exiting and more developed article on National heritage site. 2) A lack of references also means this fails WP:GNG. Now, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom if someone could cite a good source that defines this clearly and in such a fashion that supports this topic existence as separate from another. Otherwise, I think this should be deleted as a topic nobody was able to provide a single good reference for NINE YEARS (!), and my redirecting of this to national heritage site restored. I am pinging User:Jane023 who I believe may want to offer a critique of my proposal, as well as users User:Skookum1 and User:Necrothesp both of whom opposed my prior proposal; I hope this shows I am not interested in deletion for the sake of it but in heaving a wider discussion (and if we end up rescuing and referencing this and/or other articles, the better). Hoping to see a productive discussion! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might offer some commentary before offering a !vote. The problem as I see it is that a couple of the related articles aren't very clear and some try to cover multiple countries (and do so badly) so as not to be tagged as US-centric. It may well be that all "heritage sites" are "historic sites", but obviously not all "historic sites" are "heritage sites". Not all "heritage sites" are "National heritage sites". In Australia we have "heritage listed sites" and most are administered by the States and aren't National heritage or historic sites at all. We do, though, have a few UNESCO nationally listed sites, many with their own specific protective legislation. Our "National Parks" are actually administered by the States and include a range of natural heritage sites. Other countries are different again. The UK has its Historic Houses Trust (similar in function to some of our heritage listing provisions). My point is that these terms mean different things to different people depending on context. You would only need to search for "heritage listed site" to find more than enough to justify an article about the concept of "heritage sites". But is that the same or should we be creating Heritage listed sites for us Australians while letting this go because it's too broad? Stalwart111 03:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stalwart111: A very good observation. I certainly acknowledge different terms are used in different languages or by different organizations, and we can certainly define them using sources specific to a given notable, national or regional topic, from Polish zabytek to international UN World Heritage Site. My argument is that I am not seeing any good sources for more than one generic term, certainly not consistently used. In other words, I think we should have just one article about (nationa) historic/heritage site, in which we could more clearly explain that 1) different countries use different terminology and 2) some sources (which?) distinguish, if inconsistently, between different types of such sites (however I doubt we can argue that those different sites are separately notable). Having them all discussed in one article where all redirects would point would alleviate the current confusing mess of historic site vs heritage site vs national heritage site vs few more terms I haven't caught yet (and then why historic site is stubbed but cultural monument just a redirect? PS. For an example of a related term that's defined well enough to show some notability, see cultural artifact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An authoritative document like Unesco's Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage shows that (world) heritage sites include both historic sites and "natural heritage" sites, which include natural biological or geological features. So it seems clear that heritage site and historic site are not synonyms. I need to think a bit more about all the other issues raised in this complex nomination. --Mark viking (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mark viking: Is the usage of those terms consistent? My current belief is that it isn't, which is why we would be better of discussing those closely related and inconsistently used terms in one article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am responding to your ping, Piotrus. Though I agree that it's shameful that there are unreferenced stubs on Wikipedia that are 9 years old, I certainly won't vote to delete or merge them all based on that reason alone. On this specific issue, I have tried in the past to link some generic terminology, such as the National Heritage Site article, to specific terminology, such as in zabytek, kulturdenkmal, or rijksmonument. This article could be used for provincial or municipal heritage lists and could then be linked to State Park, Municipal monuments of "City x" and so on. I felt we needed this structure in order to form a basis upon which people could create articles on places photographed in Wiki Loves Monuments. I set up an infra page here for interested parties to hack away on: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Infrastructure. Ideally that whole infrastructure should be filled in, either here or on WikiData. I believe that getting the National level lists on Wikipedia is more important than working on the UNESCO World Heritage sites, as those are only considered by one international committee, whereas the national lists are often much older and decided upon by local laws. What I think is missing from this conversation is the need to link to specific types of protection and then to link those to various protection agencies (many now sadly defunct in light of global tax cuts, but I believe local laws are still in effect). Jane (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All excellent work, but it doesn't concern the primary issue here. We can certainly infer the existence of the concept of national heritage site from the list of heritage registers (which oustide the UNESCO ones describes only national-level ones, so really should be moved to the List of national heritage registers). But so far nobody has presented any good, reliable sources to justify the notability of a separate non-national heritage site concept. Now, I think that we may be able to find such sources, through I failed. Unless we do, however, arguing that heritage site should have a separate article because we feel it is a separate, notable concept is WP:ORish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The concept as a "container concept" may not have a reliable resource to reference for the article, but any specific register for local heritage sites will. The whole point is that a list such as any used for the American concept of Historic district will have its own, specifically local reference. This article is a gateway to such articles on a broader scale, since heritage can mean more than a specific location. And as pointed out above, you need this one in combination with the other Historic site to differentiate types of preservation initiatives. Let me turn the question around; what is your specific objection to this article, because it seems to be linked from lots of other articles, so deleting implies that you want to do something with those links? Jane (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I might (in answer to your question above and our discussion), the following discuss "heritage sites" in general: 1 and 2 - neither of which are formally listed heritage sites but are sites identified by companies or individuals as being "heritage sites" for the purposes of various activities. In an Australian context, this site gives an excellent overview. Stalwart111 13:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stalwart. I have no problem with using Australian references in the article, so you can go ahead and use those. And Piotr, as far as your "WP:ORish" comment above, here is an example of a well-referenced list of heritage sites that are at the "non-national" level, as they are by definition protected at the State level: List of New Hampshire state parks. Many of the objects in that list are historic sites, but many are natural wonders or forest reserves. Jane (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

convert to disambig? I have some familiarity with the US version of this sort of thing but I must confess I find the above arguments confusing. "Heritage site" may not be a thing unto itself, but it's part of the name of a bunch of closely related things, and it would be useful to have a link off it to "historic site". At the very least some sort of disambiguation seems to me to be in order. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A typical heritage site that is not at the National level but is also not a historic site, is a park that is meant for public access and is used for public gatherings that are part of a town's cultural heritage (such as for sports gatherings or other main events). I would be curious to read your disambiguation list! You can just put your ideas on the talk page. Jane (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds very reasonable. Now, can you cite a reference for this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This feels like a dictionary definition, rather than an encyclopaedia article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreferenced, stubbish OR...yep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World Heritage Site. Might be possible to mention local heritage site designations there if such exist, but as far as I can tell that is the proper subject that covers heritage sites around the world. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable solution to me. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It took me all of a minute to find a source which discusses the concept of a heritage site and explicitly differentiates it from that of a historic site: "Is a Heritage Site a Historic Site?". AFD is not cleanup so please follow WP:BEFORE. Andrew (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adrian Mole#Family. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Mole

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

This is a non-notable topic, which should be merged to Adrian Mole: there are no references, and perhaps a List of Adrian Mole characters would be better suited to hold this information. Mat ty.007 07:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adrian Mole#Family; insufficient coverage found to warrant a standalone article. Gongshow talk 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adrian Mole#Family. No independent notability, no need to separate article. The Adrian Mole article already gives a sufficient amount of information on the character, so it is not really worth merging any of the content. Moswento ^talky 09:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Page redirected to Compressed earth block#Development. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch brick (stabilized earth block)

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

Probable hoax, unsourced for five years. Can't find a single reliable (rather than commercial) source which documents it as a type of brick.The nearest I can find is something called Dutch Masters Brick, which seems to actually be Dutch and a producer of brick or something which has been used in Irish building.But clearly not what this article is about! I find it hard to believe that "Dutch brick" would be a common term used for the bricks of houses in west Africa! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete By going back to the first version of the article and using it as a basis for searching I found this thirty-year-old Peace Corps newsletter which has a very passing reference to "Dutch Brick" as a type of well construction. Everything else I've found is either obviously irrelevant, traceable to us, or quite recent and therefore hard not to trace to us. It's possible that this was Peace Corps jargon of a certain era but I can't be sure even of that and certainly not of what it meant. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or expand and rename Dutch brick is clearly a notable, hard, paving brick as can be seen by an internet search and defined as such in Sturgis' dictionary. Bricks as described in this article clearly exist as stabilized, compressed earth block and stabilized adobe or stabilized mud block in general. So, the question becomes how obscure the "colloquial term" Dutch brick is and whether the article should be renamed something like stabilized mud block or merged into another article such as mud brick. Page 48 of this 1955 study of earth building techniques in Africa describes a Portland cement stabilized mud coating as "Dutch plaster", but I cannot find a reference for the Dutch brick described in this article. I must say I feel Wikipedia's policy on notability should be refined. I see the need for limiting articles on biographies, rock bands, organizations, etc. but sometimes the obscure, unpopular information in the history of building construction is the most valuable information. I understand that a non-notable topic may not deserve its own article but certainly can be included in a broader article as there is no notability standard for the information within an article. However, there is a tendency in the area of construction topics to give each small topic its own article. One advantage of this is interlanguage linking to similar topics. Jim Derby (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sturgis definition is not for the same thing! And the problem I'm coming upon in this is that, at the moment, the only authority I can find for this definition of "Dutch brick" is the original, eight-year-old Wikipedia article, which was put in by an IP who gave no citations whatsoever. Notability doesn't even begin to be the issue; even the most minimal standard of verifiability is not met. We not only lack good sources, we lack bad sources. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncomfortable with merging into mudbrick. These bricks, made on site using cement and local materials such as earth, sand and gravel, are more a type of concrete brick, but I do not see merging into the article on concrete either. To the development community what distinguishes them is that they are a cheap "Dutch" solution that can be made locally, not so much what they are made of. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some content with sources. The Dutch bricks described in this article are real enough, and important in the developing world. It is a legitimate subject. Most search results use the term to mean bricks from the Netherlands - the Dutch have been making and exporting bricks for a long time - so perhaps there is a better title? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion looks good, but there still remains some dubious claims which need to be sourced and I'm not convinced that the article title is suitable either. "Dutch brick is a colloquial term for blocks formed by concrete stabilized soil used to form blocks" Says who? I see little evidence of it as an actual term, rather I see sources which refer to bricks exported from the Netherlands. How about Brick production in the Netherlands and you could include the other side of it in terms of production as well as the use of them in African development? That would be really notable I think and a more appropriate context. I'd then remove the current unsourced material about it being a term and change it so it is centred around the Dutch brick making industry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two completely different things. Dutch bricks made in the Netherlands could easily be the subject of an article - there are many sources that discuss them. They are kiln-fired clay bricks, often yellow, prized for their quality, exported to other countries, used for paving and so on. This article is about concrete bricks made of cement, sand and gravel, or cement and earth, made on site and cured in the open air, used for wells and houses in developing countries. They have nothing to do with the Netherlands.The name is just a slang term meaning they are not "real bricks", sort of like "Dutch oven". This article should kept but moved to something like "Dutch brick (concrete)". Aymatth2 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything much on so-called Dutch bricks, but there is quite a bit about Mexican concrete (as an admixture of dirt and concrete). See Google Book results, even filtering out the sources that simply juxtapose Mexican and concrete in discussion of other subjects. I am uncomfortable with what comes across as a bit disparaging. is there a more established name for this type of admixture? Can user:Giano or some other editor with expertise in the architecture field suggest better terminology for us to use to cover this subject more broadly? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to soil cement? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the uncomfortable feeling that there are three different meanings for this term:

Bricks made in the Netherlands - much the most common meaning for the term
Bricks with a trapezoidal shape suitable for lining wells in developing countries
Bricks made locally from cement and soil in developing countries

Often type 2 bricks are also type 3, but type 2 can be made with standard concrete using cement, sand and gravel, and type 3 can be rectangular, suitable for low-cost housing. The article as it stands blends types 2 and 3. Perhaps that is not a problem - but there must be a better name. WP is not a dictionary, but there seems to be room on each meaning to give a reasonable article with plenty of sources. Meaning 1 is clearly a rich topic, but I hesitate to rename this one to make room for it until this discussion is resolved. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, some editors freak out if efforts are made to fix articles while they are part of a deletion discussion. This is unfortunate and goes against core principles, but it is what it is. If you are volunteering to work on it, I think userfication would be reasonable. As the article stands it has some problems. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the typical AfD article there are easily enough sources to show that the subject is notable, so the article should be kept. But the name is wrong. The term "Dutch brick" almost always means "Netherlands brick". And I have the feeling this article should be split into two, one about using cement and local materials (sand, gravel, maybe soil) to make bricks on site at low cost, and the other about using trapezoidal bricks to make wells, latrines etc. If someone can suggest reasonable target titles, I can do the move and split, and start one on the Netherlands bricks. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase dutch brick is no hoax - it's an entry in the OED, for one thing. As there seem to be a variety of meanings, then this is a matter of disambiguation not deletion. Andrew (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the disputed page and this discussion to Dutch brick (stabilized earth block) - I think. Before doing so I started Brick-lined well to cover meaning 2 above, copying some content, and copied some other content into Compressed earth block, which is where the original article probably should have redirected in the first place. This makes way for a proper article on the primary meaning of the term, which looks interesting.

The article is now a fork of Compressed earth block, into which it should be merged (is that grammatical?), but that is a different question. The article on Compressed earth block is hopelessly US-centric and unsourced. I may try to add some balance, I hope I have not muddled the issue too badly. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd forgotten about this article and AFD and haven't been active of late. I think you've done an excellent job in sorting out the mess and you did the right thing converting the Dutch brick article into a general one and moving this. I think though you should just redirect this into Brick-lined well. Nomination withdrawn♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Glad to see the nomination withdrawn, and to see good work about trying to sort this out. --do ncr am 02:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Secrets Series

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

Non-notable book series; no coverage found in reliable sources. Brought to AfD as this topic does not appear to fit the CSD criteria. Gongshow talk 16:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 16:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable at present. A little Googling reveals that this is the authors first book, only came out Feb 20 2014, and is self published. --220 of ^Borg 01:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Suggest googling authors name, as there are several other book series called 'Hidden Secrets'. --220 of ^Borg 01:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable self-published book, article apparently written by the author. Couldn't find any reviews or the like. Moswento ^talky 08:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coco (application)

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

Fails WP:ORG's subsection for products.

Outside of the four references in the article, I could find no more significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.

The article has four references in it. Two are about a barely related subject (Harvard's i-lab) and two are significant coverage from independent and seemingly reliable sources. Still, neither source ("AddictiveTips" and "MakeTechEasier") are what I would consider a large source and as WP:AUD points out, "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Also, both call themselves blogs which may not help their reliability.

There may be more coverage out there but it's hard to find anything in the slew of download pages scattered across the internet. It doesn't help that "Coco" has so many other uses, either.

On a side note, this was the author's first article and the only other article they worked on was the creating company's article (Instanza). They seem to be an WP:SPA. WCS100 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yet another drop in the torrent of indistinguishable instant messaging apps with their own incompatible proprietary protocol. The analysis of situation sources by nominator appears correct (although I would note that Edudemic is actually a reprint from Harvard Gazette). I would argue that WP:ORG doesn't apply to this article at all, but I still would expect at least one reputable source in addition to "AddictiveTips" and "MakeTechEasier", which are at best second-grade sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised that WP:ORG is the only part of the notability guideline that mentions products, outside of what WP:GNG covers. WP:PRODUCT is in WP:ORG and covers this situation, to a degree. I'm not sure how new that is but I've seen several situations just like this one where articles about a product and company are kept because of inherited notability. I'm glad it's been added. WCS100 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instanza about the company that makes this product. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage for Coco or Coco Voice. The references in the article are very unimpressive. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 10:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instanza

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

Not a notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.

On my own, I could find no articles that represent independent and significant coverage from reliable sources about Instanza.

The article has four references in it. Two are about a barely related subject (Harvard's i-lab) and only mention the company's product and never even mention Instanza.

As a note, the notability of the product itself (Coco (application)) means nothing for the notability of the company that makes it. Notability is not inherited. This is outlined specifically in WP:PRODUCT.

On a side note, this was the author's first article and the only other article they worked on was the product's article. They seem to be an WP:SPA. WCS100 (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence of notability for this firm. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since its product is notable, how about a redirect to Coco (application) ? --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Worth noting that the product is itself also at AfD. AllyD (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. I assumed from the comment above that the product's notability was evident. Looks like it isn't. Changing to delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article for Coco (application), the product made by this company, was deleted due to the subject not being notable. WCS100 (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of top-level domains. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.menu

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

An irrelevant domain. A merge with a list of all top level domains could be good. Staglit (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think a redirect to something like Generic_top-level_domain#New_top-level_domains or List of top-level domains would be appropriate until the article sumbitter can demonstrate it has passed the WP:GNG. Collectively the new TLDs considered together, are highly noteworthy, which is why we have two articles discussing them, linked above, Individually, they are almost all not (yet) notable. There are a huge number of these, and they are actually quite easy to register, if you've got enough money. Just because something is in ICANN's database, doesn't mean it passes WP:N. -- The Anome (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Anome for a redirect; in this case, I think a redirect to List of top-level domains would be the most appropriate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.mango

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

An irrelevant domain. A merge with a list of all top level domains could be good. Staglit (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question What exactly to you mean by "irrelevant"? And where exactly have you searched.? DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not the place for discussing mergers. Since in this case, it is an uncontroversial merger to List_of_Internet_top-level_domains, you should have merged all the articles instead of nominating here. Atleast you should have bundled all your nomination. Harsh (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect to something like Generic_top-level_domain#New_top-level_domains or List of top-level domains would be appropriate until the article sumbitter can demonstrate it has passed the WP:GNG. Collectively the new TLDs considered together, are highly noteworthy, which is why we have two articles discussing them, linked above, Individually, they are almost all not (yet) notable. There are a huge number of these, and they are actually quite easy to register, if you've got enough money. Just because something is in ICANN's database, doesn't mean it passes WP:N. -- The Anome (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. No independent notability in a search engine test. Best kept in list until sources show. Before you nominate to AfD, might be worth discussing merge options on the article talk pages. And group deletion nominations can be bundled, for the future. czar ♔ 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Staglit, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended merge as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or otherwise just do it yourself WP:BOLDly. Have a good one czar ♔ 16:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Czar : I suppose my wording was off. I meant that they could be deleted if they were regarded as insignificant, or merged to the other article if they are seen as an appropriate fit for that but not for their own article. Personally, I think they should all be deleted completely, but the possibility for a merge is obviously still open. Staglit (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains as not notable for a standalone article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.miami

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

An irrelevant domain. A merge with a list of all top level domains could be good. Staglit (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question What exactly to you mean by "irrelevant"? And where exactly have you searched.? DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can find, there are barely any sites registered with this. Even the .miami website fails to mention any sales. THis goes with all the other articles I have found like this. Staglit (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect to something like Generic_top-level_domain#New_top-level_domains or List of top-level domains would be appropriate until it has passed the WP:GNG. Collectively the new TLDs considered together, are highly noteworthy, which is why we have two articles discussing them, linked above, Individually, they are almost all not (yet) notable. There are a huge number of these, and they are actually quite easy to register, if you've got enough money. Just because something is in ICANN's database, doesn't mean it passes WP:N. -- The Anome (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. No independent notability in a search engine test. Best kept in list until sources show. Before you nominate to AfD, might be worth discussing merge options on the article talk pages. And group deletion nominations can be bundled, for the future. czar ♔ 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Staglit, are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended merge as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or otherwise just do it yourself WP:BOLDly. Have a good one czar ♔ 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains as not notable for a standalone article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.meet

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

An irrelevant domain. A merge with a list of all top level domains could be good. Staglit (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. In theory all TLDs could be listed in List of Internet top-level domains#ICANN-era generic top-level domains but there's hundreds of them, mostly with little or no coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect to something like Generic_top-level_domain#New_top-level_domains or List of top-level domains would be appropriate until it has passed the WP:GNG. There are a huge number of these, and they are actually quite easy to register, if you've got enough money. Just because something is in ICANN's database, doesn't mean it passes WP:N. -- The Anome (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. No independent notability in a search engine test. Best kept in list until sources show. Before you nominate to AfD, might be worth discussing merge options on the article talk pages. And group deletion nominations can be bundled, for the future. czar ♔ 16:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains as not notable for a standalone article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.lighting

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

An irrelevant domain. A merge with a list of all top level domains could be good. Staglit (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Staglit (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's hundreds of TLDs, most with little or no media coverage. Possibly we need a debate over whether they should be listed somewhere but a separate article is totally inappropriate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains until evidence is shown of meeting WP:N -- The Anome (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list. No independent notability in a search engine test. Best kept in list until sources show. Before you nominate to AfD, might be worth discussing merge options on the article talk pages. czar ♔ 16:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains as not notable for a standalone article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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