Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 6 March 8 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karim bey Mehmandarov

Karim bey Mehmandarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Azerbaijani doctor. Claim to notability appears to be that he founded a girls school.[1] This is one of a set of pages about people of an extended family created by one editor, with an appearance of personal knowledge. [2] – Fayenatic London 23:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The proposal for deletion is apparently written by someone with no knowledge of history of (tzar) Russia or Azerbaijan, with many wrong conclusions in the couple of sentences over. I would suggest study the articles in other languages that point to sources about him, and amongst others, to the archive materials in the Russian State Military Historical Archive (references to ЦГВИА or ВИА). State archives of both Azerbaijan and Russia are full of information about this person, and there has been written studies, Ph.D. research in Academy of Sciences, and articles on that topic. Also, as you can see, the person has received numerous awards/orders. What else is needed to satisfy the notability requirements? Science.nauka (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made the nomination in response to your edit summary ([1] above) where you stated that adding the founding of the school, and being part of the leadership of a local educational society, were grounds for notability. They are not sufficient for WP:BIO. I do not know whether the awards (2nd, 3rd and 4th class) - mentioned only in the infobox, not yet in the article itself - confer notability. – Fayenatic London 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 March 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. G7: Deletion endorsed by creator, no significant edits by other contributors. No prejudice against recreation/undeletion if/when WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. The Bushranger One ping only 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou Airlines

AfDs for this article:
Fuzhou Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this article for deletion a while back but withdrawn on the premise that it would be expanded beyond notability. However, information about this airline apart that it was "to be created" is noexistent. At this point, since it seems that the airline has not been established, I think this could be a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Not to mention that it doesn't meet WP:GNG too, since most available information talks about how it was supposed to be created, and all sources who happen to mention it only repeat the same thing. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 23:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless... ...these sources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I just found are new. They may just be old news with a new date. I'd like second opinion. Some seem to have today's date, but start with "In 2012..." sort of thing. I think they've been approved by the Civil Aviation Administration of China now and are starting to build, according to some of those sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The abovementioned sources #1 (October 16, 2012), #2 (August 20, 1012), #3 (October 17, 2012) and #4 (October 25, 2012) are clearly dated; #5 and #6 are in Chinese characters; and #7 is a dead link. I quote from WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This announcement was made 15 months ago, and nothing came of it. Kraxler (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the above links. These seem to say definitively, and this year, that approval has been granted:[10][11] What do you think? Does WP:CRYSTAL still call for delete? One question is: is it an airline right now? Anyway, if it's a delete, it can be recreated. If there will be regular news to help expand the article, then maybe a keep. Either way, I'm fine with it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are in Chinese. Non-English sources can be accepted under certain circumstances, if somebody translates them, per WP:Sources. Would you care to have a complete translation of both sources made by a third party and posted here? Since the company is nowhere (except right here) mentioned in Latin script (per Google) it still won't meet WP:GNG, I suppose. You're quite correct, the article could be recreated as soon as the airline starts operations, or gets mentioned anywhere in the English-speaking universe. That shouldn't be difficult since all operating airlines get listed by IATA or some other international aviation organization. Kraxler (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A third party translation is too much bother in this case. The article just doesn't have enough value right now. I'm moving to delete (and will strike the "delete unless" to make life easier for the closer). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kraxler. We can always restore a copy if/when this org gets up in the air. Right now, it has little value to visitors as it is still virtually a non-entity. Sorry to waste everyone's time creating this in the first place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 8 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidpower (organization)

Kidpower (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and now we have a sock farm emerging to promote it. There are hits in a Google search, but nothing close to an in-depth, non-routine passage in a WP:RS. Tagged as non-notable since September, orphaned since November 2006. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2nd AFD; previous was under former article name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIDPOWER. --doncram 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per comment at previous AFD: "woefully inadequate nomination that brings the nominator's (sincere, but clearly not up to the task) judgement into strong question and suggests any other present and future nominations should be closely examined for possible removal as wastes of AFD time. --User:David Gerard." My quick look at Guidestar.org, source for free copies of nonprofits' financial filings with the U.S. IRS, is that the [California 501c3 part of the] organization has $545,000 net assets in 2012, received original nonprofit status in 1998, is a significant organization. Sure, the article can/should be developed, but that is not for AFD. As for allegations of sock-farming, i am not any part of such, and what evidence is there of any such issue? --doncram 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was 2008, and standards have tightened. Your attack against me is not appreciated in the slightest. Nothing in your vote is policy based whatsoever; you've made no attempt to show it meets ORG or GNG, as a directory stating that they have a particular amount of assets (which is really not that significant an amount of assets anyway) does not count. Either make a proper policy-based vote, or just delete your pointless and unhelpful attack against me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry that the quote from previous AFD seemed like an attack on you personally. It was a strong statement then, but seems relevant now in particular about any present or future nominations being a waste of AFD time. Referring to the previous AFD seems relevant as it was not mentioned in the nomination (I just inserted link to the AFD above), and maybe that suggests the nomination was not properly done. Anyhow, it seemed by consensus to be a notable organization in 2008 and seems to me significant still now, and AFD is not for cleanup to force the addition of new references. Yes, it should be developed, but that is not for AFD. --doncram 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence of this meeting GNG, and the sources in the previous AfD aren't close to showing that, for reasons that I've already explained. A company being worth $500k means absolutely nothing; in fact, that is quite a small company, and I'm pretty sure the company my dad used to work for was worth more before they got liquidated - owning a reasonable-sized property is immediately going to take up much of that value. Operating in numerous countries and U.S. states doesn't, by itself, show any notability either. David Gerard's vote, which you quote as being somehow relevant, was both a ridiculous personal attack and had no basis in policy either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The organization operates in numerous countries and through separate 501c3 corporations in numerous U.S. states. It was started in California in 1989. There is Kidpower Great Lakes and others, all having IRS 990 forms filed, so totalling to much bigger financial size than i cited above (which was just for the California branch). This is one article about all of them, and is certainly notable. --doncram 02:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be changed to take into consideration facts such as "The organization operates in numerous countries" and having assets with a large value, but as the guidelines stand at present, those are irrelevant.
Of the six references, three are on kidpower's own websites, two are dead links, and the other is on a personal website.
I looked at the first four pages of hits from a Google search. First, it was necessary to weed out hits for "kidpower" that clearly have nothing to do with this organisation, such as an IMDb page for Kid Power (TV Series 1972– ), a page about Kidpower Park in San Francisco, a web page of "a support and information list for families whose children are mildly affected by cerebral palsy and/or other disabilities" etc. Once I had done that, I was left with pages on kidpower's own web site, the Wikipedia article, a Facebook page, YouTube, and that was it. There is no evidence, either in the article or anywhere else that I can find, of satisfying the current notability guidelines.
I have checked the links to news items which were given in the last AfD discussion. Unfortunately, a few of them are dead links, but it is clear that those of them that are still active point to coverage which, as Luke says, are largely "local sources, obvious PR sources, or clearly not in-depth coverage". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the organization's employees contacted OTRS asking for help. Since they got caught up in a socking situation and their accounts are blocked, I offered and was given permission to paste these references here verbatim for other editors' consideration. I am not offering a !vote or otherwise making a case for any particular outcome.
It is their hope that this can be considered significant coverage that might help the subject past the WP:ORG guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, to KidPower participant(s) and to OTRS volunteer FreeRangeFrog for that. I think that helps a lot (and have already "voted" Keep above). The above links and others from the news coverage page, document substantial coverage in my opinion. One quibble, about one item on the U.S. news coverage page: there is a summary for a linked New York Times article, which seems not quite accurate when you read the linked article. I would believe that Irene van der Zande was interviewed, and even was quoted in some version of the story, but the linked article does not include mention of her or include a quote, as the summary asserts, so it is not documented in the NYT. I zoomed in on that one because NYT is highly regarded. --doncram 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, i had seen the mention of KidPower on the page 2 continuation, maybe i should have made that clear; my quibble/complaint was that the organization's webpage summarizing news coverage seems to have at least one incorrect summary, diminishing my willingness to believe anything else they claim. But still i did vote Keep above and stand with that, and I do think this article should be kept. It is a significant group of related charitable nonprofits, with significant coverage. --doncram 01:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Kinda sorta COI notice: Several years ago I was on the board of an organization with a similar program. I don't think it's a signficant bias, but the closer can determine that for themselves.) In addition to the provided sources, I found two more sources (and stopped looking at two) in HighBeam:
Kids learn to establish personal boundaries
The Gazette (Colorado Springs, CO)
March 12, 2000 | Jeremy Meyer; The Gazette
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5946564.html
BUILDING KID POWER
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
January 18, 2001 | VERA LAWLOR, Staff Writer
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-39739817.html
I believe with the other sources already provided this is a pretty easy keep call, the two I've listed would be enough (barely) for me to argue for notability under WP:GNG by themselves. Both the two articles treat Kidpower as a primary topic, they're not one sentence or one paragraph shout outs. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:51, 17 March 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) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish footballers

List of Jewish footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a very strange and non notable intersection. What on earth is encyclopaedic about the intersection of football and Jewishness? It is almost as if the article was created to make some sort of anti-antisemitic point (though I very much doubt that knowing the creating editor, and I am absolutely making no accusations of that). The world is not better for the existence of this article and will not be worse for the lack of it. Why does anyone actually care that Fred is Jewish and plays football? Now a list of notable Israeli football players is a different matter. But this list is artificial at best. Fiddle Faddle 22:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.

  1. ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010

By the same token, it is by virtue of being a member of this intersection that one qualifies -- if sufficiently talented -- to play in the Maccabiah Games, the Jewish Olympics held quadrennially.

Furthermore, the notability of this intersection--as measured by Wikipedia standards--is reflected in the below books all of which focus on all or some of the elements of the list that nom is suggesting be deleted:

  1. Jews and the Sporting Life, Vol. 23 of Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Ezra Mendelsohn, Oxford University Press US, 2009, ISBN 0195382919
  2. Day by Day in Jewish Sports History, Bob Wechsler, KTAV Publishing House, 2008, ISBN 1602800138
  3. The Big Book of Jewish Athletes: Two Centuries of Jews in Sports - a Visual History, Peter S. Horvitz, Joachim Horvitz, S P I Books, 2007, ISBN 1561719277
  4. The Big Book of Jewish Sports Heros: An Illustrated Compendium of Sports History and The 150 Greatest Jewish Sports Stars, Peter S. Horvitz, SP Books, 2007, ISBN 1561719072
  5. Jews, Sports, and the Rites of Citizenship, Jack Kugelmass, University of Illinois Press, 2007, ISBN 025207324X
  6. Emancipation through Muscles: Jews and Sports in Europe, Michael Brenner, Gideon Reuveni, translated by Brenner, Reuveni, U of Nebraska Press, 2006, ISBN 0803213557
  7. Jewish Sports Stars: Athletic Heroes Past and Present, David J. Goldman, Edition 2, Kar-Ben Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1580131832
  8. Judaism's Encounter with American Sports, Jeffrey S. Gurock, Indiana University Press, 2005, ISBN 0253347009
  9. Jews and the Olympic Games; Sport: Springboard for Minorities, Paul Yogi Mayer, Vallentine Mitchell, 2004, ISBN 0853034516
  10. Great Jews in Sports, Robert Slater, Jonathan David Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0824604539
  11. Jews and the Olympic Games: The Clash between Sport and Politics: with a complete review of Jewish Olympic medallists, Paul Taylor, Sussex Academic Press, 2004, ISBN 1903900883
  12. The 100 Greatest Jews in Sports: Ranked According to Achievement, B. P. Robert Stephen Silverman, Scarecrow Press, 2003, ISBN 0810847752
  13. Jewish Sports Legends: the International Jewish Hall of Fame, 3rd Ed, Joseph Siegman, Brassey's, 2000, ISBN 1574882848
  14. Sports and the American Jew, Steven A. Riess, Syracuse University Press, 1998, ISBN 0815627548
  15. Ellis Island to Ebbets Field: Sport and the American Jewish Experience, Peter Levine, Oxford University Press US, 1993, ISBN 0195085558
  16. The Jewish Child's Book of Sports Heroes, Robert Slater, Jonathan David Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0824603605
  17. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, Joseph M. Siegman, SP Books, 1992, ISBN 1561710288
  18. The Jewish Athletes Hall of Fame, B. P. Robert Stephen Silverman, Shapolsky Publishers, 1989, ISBN 094400704X
  19. From the Ghetto to the Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary, Andrew Handler, East European Monographs, 1985, ISBN 0880330856
  20. The Jew in American Sports, Harold Uriel Ribalow, Meir Z. Ribalow, Edition 4, Hippocrene Books, 1985, ISBN 0882549952
  21. The Jewish Athlete: A Nostalgic View, Leible Hershfield, s.n., 1980
  22. Encyclopedia of Jews in Sports, Bernard Postal, Jesse Silver, Roy Silver, Bloch Pub. Co., 1965

In addition, the existence of of the following also suggests the notability of the intersection:

  1. International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  2. Jewish Canadian Athletes Hall of Fame
  3. U.S. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum
  4. Michigan Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  5. Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Western Pennsylvania
  6. Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Northern California
  7. Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  8. Orange County Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  9. Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  10. Rochester Jewish Sports Hall of Fame

Furthermore, it follows the logic inherent in us having as articles, for example: List of Palestinians, List of Palestinian-Americans, List of Muslim scientists, List of Muslim sportspersons, List of Muslim mathematicians, List of Muslim astronomers, List of Muslim writers and poets, List of Islamic jurists, List of Muslims in entertainment and the media, List of Muslim Nobel laureates, List of Muslim painters, List of American Muslims, List of Shi'a Muslims, List of converts to Islam, List of Arab scientists and scholars, List of Arab Americans, List of Arab Canadians, and List of Arab American writers. Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the wall of text that Epeefleche has put above is relying on a lot of WP:OSE, some incredibly small-scale sources and/or sources of dubious reliability, and a hell of a lot of things that are irrelevant to this topic (meandering off to general sports, athletics or whatever). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is insufficient to dismiss discussion of related articles on basis of labelling it "Other Stuff Exists". From the "guidance essay" wp:OSE: "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid...." (emphasis added by me). I think in the past that there were lots more truly bad articles, so pointing to them did seem unhelpful, but there has been so much development in Wikipedia that it is increasingly relevant and important to consider our apparent standards reflected in comparable articles. --doncram 02:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually bother to look at the things Epeefleche was citing, rather than following me around and attacking me in AfD debates, you'll see that none of them are relevant to this particular topic, because none of the mentioned ones are directly relevant to football, and only one is relevant to sportsmen and sportswomen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a list of Jewish sportspeople would certainly be notable (I noticed this when I found Feierstein's book, Historia de los judíos argentinos, which dedicates a full section to Argentine sportspeople that were Jews), and this is simply a component of such a list (including all sports in a single list would be unmanageable). 03:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is a more detailed subset of the list contained at List of Jews in sports, which was speedy-kept pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports (3rd nomination). As demonstrated there and in other discussions over the years, this is unquestionably a notable topic that has been discussed in a plethora of sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the list is more than a handful, so its a significant number, thus of presumable interest to someone. the 2 criteria are very well defined. you are always either jewish or not jewish, and a footballer or not. no one is "sort of" either. lists or categories of intersections of 2 notable subjects are i believe usually kept if definable and notable (ie if there are any that fit the intersection, or more than a few). I think people react to "jewish" as a modifier as it often sounds racist, even when its not meant that way. i find it odd to see in print, but its a gut reaction not usually justified by the context, which is neutral in this case.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this is a well-structured list of notable Jewish footballers, has high EV with lots of publications on the subject. It's not too broad either. Classic WP:POINT. Actually, not too long ago there was something about celebrating Jewish football in the news; I don't remember what it was about exactly but they did speak about current and past Jewish footballers around the world. (If the name comes back to me I'll mention it, I think it was a museum in Philadelphia) --CyberXRef☎ 07:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's another source: The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture. Andrew (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Shad

Saeed Shad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently recreated after a G12-deletion. The article is about a blp without reliable independent sources and the article does not display notability. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edilberto de Oliveira

Edilberto de Oliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses). Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Landi-Jons

José Landi-Jons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses).Mdtemp (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 March 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. KTC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Chabria

Yogesh Chabria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long-term unsourced BLP, I didn't see coverage which would establish notability under WP:GNG. The only item in HighBeam is a reprinted press release. [12], but additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 8 March 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. It would've been nice to link WP:POLITICIAN when asserting that state and territorial representatives are generally considered notable. WilyD 11:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hastings Hunkins

Robert Hastings Hunkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician. Fails to establish notability. Item better suited for a genealogy site. reddogsix (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Keep - Robert Hastings Hunkins should be kept as an article. He is involved in early Wisconsin politics and is well sourced. He was also first justice for the town and town representative. - Kbabej (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the creator of this article, Kbabej has a conflict of interest, so it is not proper for Kbabej to be weighing in here. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point was: Article creators always have a vested interest in keeping the articles they create. Thus, their opinions are not objective. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is irrelevant. It will be up to the closing admin to weigh keep and delete delete arguments based on policies, guidelines, and evidence of notability. It will be more productive to focus on the article's content rather than the article's author. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sock. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

KEEP. This article focuses on a pioneer and first justice for Navy. Establishes notability per notability reqs. -AndyR112 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AndyR112 is a suspected sock-puppet of Kbabej. See AndyR112's edits. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AndyR112's third edit to Wikipedia was a posting to this page. How odd, how very odd that a new account would jump into commenting on an arcane WP page. Seven minutes after AndyR112 was identified as a suspected sockpuppet, he made a very quick series of random edits to random articles (perhaps to allay suspicion that the account served only as a sockpuppet?). How odd, how very odd. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the 4th citation the Vermont Gazetteer Robert Hastings Hunkins was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives. State and territorial legislators are considered to be notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found where he's listed as a "representative" (p. 114), but it doesn't say representative to what. Perhaps it was some sort of county-level representative. How do you know it was to the Vermont House of Representatives? Can you please provide a page number and a quote that supports that interpretation? 71.139.148.125 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 71.139.148.125(talk), it would probably be more helpful if you logged into your real account. Is there a reason you want this article off Wikipedia? You seem very committed to the idea of removing it. -Kbabej(talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have I expressed any opinion here or elsewhere that this article should be deleted? Did you see all the work I did on the article to improve it? Would I do that if I were committed to seeing it deleted? I'm just trying to make sure that the article meets WP standards. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Journals of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont Vermont General Assembly, The House of Representatives, The Legislature, 1810, Legislative Journals, pg. 3, 5; on the second Thursday, October 12, 1809, the General Assembly at Montpelier convened. On page 5-Robert Hunkins of Navy, Vermont was one of the representatives from Orleans County. In 1809, the Vermont General Assembly was unicameral. It would not been until 1836 that the Vermont State Senate was created and the Vermont General Assembly became bicameral. On pg. 5 of the legislative journal Robert Hunkins was listed as one of the representatives from Orleans County. Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sereno Wright was the printer-that is on the title page-thank you-RFD (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typed in at Google:Journals of the General Assembly of Vermont October 12, 1809 and the information about Hunkins serving in the legislature should come at page 3 and 5-Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 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 deckertalk 06:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harrison Hunkins

Henry Harrison Hunkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. H.H.H. should be kept as an article. He is involved in early Wisconsin politics and is well sourced. - Kbabej (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As the creator of this article, Kbabej has a conflict of interest, so it is not proper for Kbabej to be weighing in here. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 71.139.148.125 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

KEEP. This article focuses on an early settler and public servant of WI that served in many positions. Establishes notability IMO. -AndyR112 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AndyR112 is a suspected sock-puppet of Kbabej. See AndyR112's edits. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 71.139.148.125 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County treasurer for one year + street commissioner + member of local good-ol' boys' club = non-notable politician. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did not have important positions. But, it is very appropriate and even expected for the creater of the article to come here and try to defend their work. they have every right to comment. Once. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 11 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haneef Shareef

AfDs for this article:
Haneef Shareef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than an imdb link (which means nothing towards notability), this article is devoid of any sources to establish how this individual meets WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Haneef Shareef (t) Josve05a (c) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: The article did include sources at one point of time, which the user wich included them removed again, but however the perosn doesn't appear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia-entry. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already tried improving it, but the article's creator persistently reverted the sourced material I added. I've got better things to do with my time. It's borderline anyway; I'd say Weak delete based on WP:BLP1E - he's only notable for his 2005 arrest and detention, not for any of his films or writings. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:24, 7 March 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) buffbills7701 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional comics

List of fictional comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 March 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) buffbills7701 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional games

List of fictional games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. A long list of non-notable fictional games, it is of little use to the reader. However it allows new editors to learn how to make contributions, in a way that does no harm. Maproom (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 8 March 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) buffbills7701 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magazines

List of fictional magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional musical works

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional musical works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional plays

List of fictional plays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same case as List of fictional films. Too broad of a list full of things that are not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 March 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 Cory-Wright baronets. It seems the consensus is somewhere between delete and merge, so rounding to merge (with obviously no obligation on the destination to actually integrate the content, if deemed inappropriate) slakr\ talk / 05:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Cory-Wright, 4th Baronet

Sir Richard Cory-Wright, 4th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable aristocrat Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A knighthood can be inherited, unlike notability.TheLongTone (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that makes him completly non-notable? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains nothing like a claim of notability, and an internet search shows nothing either: no newspaper mentions for instance. Having parents is not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All hereditary Baronetcies are styled Sir (name), (N)th Baronet. The title including the Sir prefix is not earned but rather inherited. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, a knighthood can't be inherited. A baronetcy, which he holds, can be however. All knights are thus inherently notable, but not all baronets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article because his name was red-linked on a list of his family (see here Cory-Wright baronets) and he is the current holder of the title. I believe people come here looking for info even on these minor aristocrats and the article should stand. Jack1956 (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think this article is more of genealogical interest than encyclopedic value. Many Baronetcies were in fact purchased and have been passed down through families. A baronet is different from a peerage, where the latter up until 1999 had the right to take up a seat in the House of Lords. Rather a baronet is non-notable in their own right, and I see nothing else in this guy's career history to suggest he is notable for other reasons. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Petha Brath Nest

Mani Petha Brath Nest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI author removed PROD notices, so to AfD we go. Original PROD said: Unremarkable film, unsourced. Does not indicate how it meets WP:MOVIE Alexf(talk) 14:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DranDeh

DranDeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI author removed PROD notices, so to AfD we go. Original PROD said: Unremarkable film, unsourced. Does not indicate how it meets WP:MOVIE Alexf(talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 March 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 06:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgetree

Bridgetree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable company page Almogo (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 09:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (state the obvious) @ 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 February 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 11:52, 24 February 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 7 March 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. KTC (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Ukraine in Saint Petersburg

Consulate-General of Ukraine in Saint Petersburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. All this article does is confirm the consulate's address LibStar (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
or indeed the actual role of this consulate, which would refer any significant issues to the embassy in Moscow. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Stalwart111 06:54, 11 March 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 06:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1PS

1PS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not enough reliable sources at present to show they meet WP:GNG and those that have are simply for one event for example the groups formation. Nor have the released any charted music. Article should be recreated if or when they have. Blethering Scot 21:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 19 February 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 12:05, 24 February 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough coverage to establish notability. A search on Naver, a Korean search portal, shows adequate in-depth secondary coverage as seen here. The group also has a Naver people's page here; they have also released an album. KJ click here 13:49, 12 March 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 Castle Mill. j⚛e deckertalk 17:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankham Consultancy Group

Frankham Consultancy Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for a firm of architects that superficially looks fine - lots of images and references. Look closer and you see that it's mostly a rehash of the controversy about their most (in)famous project which has its own article at Castle Mill. The corporate article makes no effort to establish the notability of the company itself. It's not a big company - the Company Check reference gives their net worth as ~US$1 million and their turnover as ~US$100m (which could be inflated by subcontracting, the accounting for this kind of company can be tricky). My feeling is that they're just the wrong side of the notability line, but I invite other views. Le Deluge (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 25 February 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Castle Mill. Nothing apparently notable about the company except that they designed some building complex that people are pissed off about. Whatever notability there is, attaches to the building project, not the architecture firm, and that is already covered in the other article. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect as suggested above. I suspect something, but not most, can be kept of the article's information. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 20 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton University Mathematics Competition

AfDs for this article:
Princeton University Mathematics Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

previous AfD was no consensus. But I don't see quality third party coverage of what is a competition for high school students. A number of blog sources are used in the article. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edd

  • Delete It's not an official activity of the university, but a student activity. Student activities can be important enough to be mentioned, and many are in the university article, but this one does not seem to be. I checked the index to the Princeton student newspaper, the Daily Princetonian, back to 2007, and found no articles on it. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 10 March 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 Liv and Maddie. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzing Norgay Trainor

Tenzing Norgay Trainor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP save for IMDB. Was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage to meet WP:GNG show significance of multiple roles under WP:ENT #1. j⚛e deckertalk 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 25 February 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 7 March 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 Intension. This seems to be the solution which will satisfy most people. It can always be split out again later if sources are found, and there is enough content in the Intension article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intensional statement

Intensional statement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely unreferenced, and hence lacks any evidence of notability. While I'm sure that something that may be called an 'intensional statement' exist, it's unclear that they warrant an article, and it's also particularly unclear that the particulars defined in this article are widely known or even correct, and with no references, this cannot be verified either way. I was also unable to find any treatment of it as a separate topic in Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I find it suspicious that the article was created by an anonymous IP in 2004, and has had no major expansion at all. There's also very few wikilinks to it, and no really necessary links I could find. Given this, I think it reasonable that the article as-is should be deleted, unless anyone is able to back-up the material with one or more solid references. GliderMaven (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree that the article needs refs and the topic could be explained better. But an intensional statement is, for instance, a sentence in intensional logic, which is definitely a notable topic in philosophy; see the entry in the SEP. The term is used in linguistics and semiotics as well. I don't know if it warrants a separate article, but a merge or redirect to intensional logic or intension would make more sense than deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Intension. The redirect could be tagged as {{R with possibilities}} if, as Mark viking suggests, there is potential for a full article on the statements per se. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge By 2004 Wikipedia standards, the article actually handles a notable, if an obscure and conceptually rather difficult, topic fairly well - even the lack of references was acceptable by the standards of that time, provided the article was fairly non-controversial. The problem is that the nature of the topic and the small number of inward links has resulted in the article not getting any substantial attention since then, and it has not been updated in line with our current checklist of standards. Even the article as it stands is almost certainly sourceable, though possibly with some difficulty - it corresponds closely, right down to the specific examples, with what I remember being taught about the topic as a philosophy student in about 1977, and while I rather wonder whether the article creator was using lecture notes of a similar vintage, the same material will have been somewhere in the background reading lists for that part of the course. If I can easily find some relevant sources in my remaining philosophy books, I will add them to the article, but even if I can't, they should still be available in a sufficiently good university library. Of course, the ones I remember will be fairly old (though I would point out notability is not temporary) - but the standard GBooks search comes up with quite a number of more recent reliable sources for a more up to date article, particularly if the search is expanded to the effectively synonymous intensional sentence and intensional proposition. PWilkinson (talk) 12:41, 28 February 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 7 March 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) buffbills7701 15:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Krusha e Madhe

Women of Krusha e Madhe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has highly questionable notability. Much of it reads like some sort of advertisement or promotion created to attract attention to a poor village at the corner of Europe. The article is also highly slanted towards the Albanian POV. 23 editor (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to prove the notability of this topic. 23 editor (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep selected content, but.... I am not entirely convinced that the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but the place itself (name Krushë e Madhe 42°19′12″N 20°38′02″W / 42.320°N 20.634°W / 42.320; -20.634, according to Google Maps) would definitely seem to satisfy our usual criteria for its own article, and we already have one section in this article that (with some attention to peacock wording) would make a good start. And there would be good reason to include a further paragraph or two on the women, condensed from the rest of this article with an eye to WP:NPOV, there, and also something similar as part of a Aftermath section in Massacre at Krusha e Madhe. PWilkinson (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you leaning towards a merge to Massacre at Krusha e Madhe then? The point is this is probably WP PROMOTION (judging from the emphasis put on the local economy) intended to "attract" (I don't how much success they'd have) investors to a village in Kosovo. I did not sign up for Wikipedia to keep track of promotional texts (and poorly-written ones, at that). 23 editor (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • By itself, that would be my second choice. My first choice, as we do not have an article on the village (and I would point out that almost any English village of a similar size, or indeed quite a bit smaller, has a Wikipedia article), would be to create an article on the village, starting with some of the less promotional information and more reliable sources from this article. This can reasonably include something on the village's economy and its recovery from the massacre (as well, of course, as a short paragraph or two on the massacre but referring to the main article on that for further information), but probably with only a fraction of the current detail. PWilkinson (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? 23 editor (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Should editors who participated at Wiki Academy Kosovo also declare an interest here?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disgusting that the person who writes "the best" article gets a prize (money?) for "presenting Kosovo to the world" (not to mention the extremely poor quality of the articles). A free encyclopedia, huh? 23 editor (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not just random women, these are women that have remained as lone caretakers of their families who went on to develop self-sustenance. The situation is unique enough to merit an article. --Arianit (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the situation is not unique. Wars have been fought for thousands of years and thousands of villages have been left with widowed women. Do I even have to mention the insubstantial third-party coverage about the topic? 23 editor (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I don't think that article on this group of women meets requests of WP:GROUP. The depth of coverage is not substantial. Per WP:CORPDEPTH: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. That is why this article should be merged in the article about massacre.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The story of the perseverance of these women merits its own article. I think that by merging this article with the massacre article, we would be doing a greater injustice to these people and portraying them as victims. The Massacre article speaks of victims and villains. This article is about perseverance as a result of desperateness. @23 editor - you should not display your personal prejudice upon a people in this encyclopedia. I have seen more than one example of your disruptive editing, which have been addressed to in your talk page. Please be civil if you want to show civility. --Atdheu (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I like your tone, my friend. "Story of the perseverance of these women merits its own article" is not a guideline for whether or an article should exist or not. You have failed to address the lack of insubstantial third-party coverage about the topic and the topics notability. 23 editor (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the majority of sources cover the economy of the town and the town itself, not the women in it. 23 editor (talk) 13:47, 12 March 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever We May Roam Tour

Wherever We May Roam Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing suggests that this was notable as a tour. Newspaper clippings will probably prove that it happened; that's not in doubt. But there is no indication (in a book search, for instance) that this was in itself a notable thing; there is no in-depth discussion of this tour as a tour, and that's a requirement to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's one of the biggest bands on the planet playing for nearly 18 months too! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? That someone made up the tour? Now expanded with refs to show that it took place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates in 2007 and 2010?  Anyway, that is only one sentence.  Properly citing this article would be a labor of love that should have been done when the article was created.  But not to deny your interest, I will change my !vote to Userfy if you so request.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 3 March 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 7 March 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 06:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raef al Hasan Rafa

Raef al Hasan Rafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly unsourced article that does not make clear what his personal notability is. Looks like self-promo. The Banner talk 00:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel notability could be established using few sources already listed in the article and finding some more. The present article is a total self-promotion, though. It requires to be re-written since the beginning. For now I'd suggest it to move to the creator's userspace to work on, to make it in compliance with WP:PG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something fishy is going on, now I had to restore the AfD and maintenance templates AGAIN. This is now the fourth time someone had to restore those templates... The Banner talk 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/Wikify This article needs help, but notability seems established within the article's references. There's a lot of stuff here that doesn't belong though, like COI editing and non-reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaintedCarpet (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:25, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 15:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paramjit Kaur Sirhind

Paramjit Kaur Sirhind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks independent reliable sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 February 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:40, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the sources are not reliable. Claims of special awards are not verified. Fails WP:BIO. 14:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable independent sources available. --Jakob (talk) 14:11, 7 March 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 06:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Crummett

Kris Crummett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record producer lacking non-trivial support. Article references are all primary in nature or are just listings of the individual's name. Appears to fail WP:Notability (music) reddogsix (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crummett is certainly notable within the post-hardcore genre... his records with Dance Gavin Dance alone are hugely influential in that particular scene. There is no reason why someone such as Brian McTernan should get an article if Kris Crummett cannot have one as well. Beachdude42 02:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Crummett produced many billboard 200 albums. His name mentioned a lot on indie music sites/magazines like alternative press, absolutepunk, lambgoat.35forMVP (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How does this support Wikipedia based notability? reddogsix (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 February 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, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:12, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 7 March 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, though the consensus seems to be that this article has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems requiring cleanup. (non-admin closure) Breadblade (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indietronica

AfDs for this article:
Indietronica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A big mess oforiginal research. Sources are mainly there to verify other things then the article brings them together with it's own synthesis to try connect it to "Indietronica". None actually mention "Indietronica". The source (Allmusic repeated twice) that does mention the alternative term, Indie Electronic, calls it "Less a style and more a categorization" which goes against this articles claim of a genre. The large list of "notable artists" is unsourced original research. Indietronica lacks coverage in independent sources. It's not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The state of the article may not be good, and these lists of artists generally descend into crappy OR by ignorant fanboys (and girls), but there are plenty of reliable sources that describe artists as indietronica. Whether or not it is a genre or a classification is a minor issue, and not something that justifies deletion. It is 'a thing', and the article can be fixed. --Michig (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't usually do a great deal of Wikipedia editing myself but I thought I'd weigh in. This page isn't of particularly high quality, but the genre itself absolutely exists. Whether it's a genre or a style or a categorization or whatever is rather arbitrary and doesn't really matter, whatever of those it is, it does exist, it is notable and I think in many ways, it's one of the largest movements within the modern indie scene, so I think there is reason to suggest this page should be allowed to survive. I think it's reasonably clear that the majority of this page's problems could be fixed through a thorough cleanup and inclusion of better research rather than a blanket deletion. - Jarred 22:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.25.64 (talk)
  • Keep. Indietronica is definitely a genre, though I do agree the article itself is a mess and could use a major rewrite. However, because it is a genre, it should be kept. --StellaBella242 — Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 17 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KittehCoin

KittehCoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability standards (WP:GNG etc.). No remotely reliable sources (WP:RS) mention KittehCoin. Cute name though. :-) Agyle (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I added some remotely reliable sources. Any additional steps required to prevent deletion? I plan to extend the article beyond stub as well, but right now I want to make sure the stub at least isn't deleted. --AronVanAmmers (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed their use in the article (two failed WP:RS and one was a trivial mention, in my opinion), but will repeat them here for peoples' consideration. The article's state itself doesn't particularly matter at this point (you can include media coverage here or there); adding more info without independent sources won't impact the decision. It's up to others to consider the question of notabiliity, which will probably hinge on "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (From the WP:GNG). I stand corrected in my original statement; the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source, and does mention KittehCoin trivially; and while I don't consider Cryptocoins News a reliable source ("third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it's at least in a gray area.
  • Cryptocoins News, 26 January 2014.
  • Coinchomp, 4 of February 2014 ("Bitcoin Tech & Culture Blog").
  • Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February 2014. "Others have exotic names such as ripples, megacoin, kittehcoin, lottocoin, doubloons, hobonickels, nanotoken and philosopher stones."
You can vote to keep the article yourself; begin a reply with a * and put the word keep in bold, then explain your reason(s). I hope you'll really consider the question, based on the guidelines in WP:GNG.
Agyle (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As of right now, the article has no proper sources at all, just a couple forum posts. As for the sources mentioned above, there is no real coverage of the topic- it's just people commenting on the funny name. Friday (talk) 23:07, 26 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Incidental mentions are not sufficient. A search revealed no additional significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:54, 8 March 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) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OtterBox

OtterBox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability is that the products are so popular that the term is used generically for waterproof cases. I see no evidence of that. I do see such indications of deliberate promotionalism as a list, complete with bold face headings, of all their products, details about their guarantee, and a listing of minor awards, including ones for a "growing" company, which means not yet notable. The references are almost entirely from promotional sites. The editor has written a number of similar articles for various people and companies. I am listing this for deletion rather than trying to fix it on the principle that clearly promotional editing for topics of borderline notability, should be a reason for deletion. We can delete here for whatever we think harmful or improper to the encyclopedia, and this sort of editing is in that category. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article is pretty clearly WP:PROMO (very weird to have a patents section, for example), but that doesn't take away from its notability necessarily. There's a decent number of hits on Google News, and it was named by Forbes as one of America's most promising companies [19] and some product reviews in major publications (e.g., [20]. I do share your strong distaste for the paid editing going on here. mikeman67 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Company clearly meets the GNG with its current sourcing, and it isn't quite as messy as I expected from reading the above. I gave it a little cleanup and it should be okay now. czar ♔ 22:55, 5 March 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 7 March 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. KTC (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Embrace (band)

Blue Embrace (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an American rock band that does not meet WP:BAND Rinkle gorge (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it not meet those standards? Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria (1-13) of WP:BAND does it meet? Tarot Records is not a major label. In fact, it's hard to find evidence that it is a "label" at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 7 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exertional rhabdomyolysis

Exertional rhabdomyolysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

concern = Detail is already covered at rhabdomyolysis. Some of the references are poor such as "sodium bicarbonate supplementation can reduce myoglobin, and prevent exertional rhabdomyolysis" based on this case study [21] which does not support the content in question as is not about prevention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 February 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 7 March 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 Keep as the nomination is withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) -- SMS Talk 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Haneef Shareef

Dr Haneef Shareef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable, independent sources seem to be available, at least not in English. Note that this is not (to the best of my understanding, anyway) the same person as the Dr Haneef Shareef of the Balochistan Student Organisation who disappeared in 2005. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this is same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 12:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 12:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn There are a number of sources relating to his arrest under the spelling "Hanif Sharif", so my original reason for deletion is invalid. At least some of these make reference to his work as a writer (though not a filmmaker, interestingly), so rather than continue this nomination under the argument of BLP1E I'm requesting a speedy closure and will attempt to improve the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 7 March 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 Roy and HG#Seven Network. → Call me Hahc21 19:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Win Roy & H.G.'s Money

Win Roy & H.G.'s Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable TV game show. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looked again at the previous edits. Only proposals were removed by original author, not nominations. An edit was incorrectly titled nominated for deletion when it was really proposed. My vote is unchanged. Chris Moore (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominated for speedy deletion under A7 Chris Moore (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've declined CSD A7 speedy, as not only are television programmes not covered, but even if they were there is clearly an imputation of importance in that it features two notable comedians and appeared on a national TV network. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment, Ok. I wasn't aware that a short-lived appearance on TV constituted notability. Not sure how it works in other countries, generally in US a television program is considered a company/organization/group/etc, so it would be covered. Still, it should be deleted. If wikipedia covered every show that briefly aired on any television network around the world there'd be a lot of wasted space. Chris Moore (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education in Minnesota

Higher education in Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article looks like an essay with no connection to the rest of Wikipedia. Not like an encyclopedic article. The topic is more like a summary of scientific results on return on education in Minnesota. One would expect something like an overview of higher education instutitions in Minnesota from this article, but that is already served in List of colleges and universities in Minnesota. bender235 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 7 March 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. By a pure head count, this article would be kept, but that's not how consensus (necessarily) works on Wikipedia. By my read of the debate, the substantive arguments to delete the article, particularly those advanced by Lagrange613, are based in stronger policy-grounded territory than the arguments advanced by the opposite side. I recognize that this decision may be controversial, so I am open to having it reviewed at deletion review. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox

Belle Knox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several reasons:

  • WP:BLP1E: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
  • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  • If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented..."

So far this person's life seems to meet the first 2 of these 3 criterion, as there is very little about Knox's life that will ever be public at this time, so any article Wikipedia will have about her will be slanted towards her porn career and violate NPOV and BLP.

Additionally, Knox fails WP:PORNBIO at this time. There is no evidence of Knox being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" or "[making] unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre."

Finally, do no harm; Knox was reluctant even to publicize her stage name at first due to repetitive doxxing by Internet misogynist trolls. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not e how we can possibly cover this without much better sources and indications that it will be of lasting interest. This is the sort of news story that verges on tabloid, and is therefore one where we should iterpret BLP quite strictly. DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going to try to clean this up, but so far I'm leaning towards "one event". I think that if it is deleted then we should allow someone to incubate it in their userspace until more coverage comes, though. I have a feeling that this will get listed in a textbook somewhere, but right now I'm leery about having this on here given how incredibly nasty the comments and trolling have been about her. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... it looks like the coverage here is global and quite heavy. CNN's Piers Morgan interviewed her and there's lengthy pieces in papers from other countries such as the Times of India. I think she might be one of the exceptions to the one event rule. I'm bringing in people from the feminism WP to help edit, though. I haven't really made a decision on notability either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. I'm honestly torn. This sits inbetween the line of notable and non-notable for me. I'm going to remain undecided on this one, but I'd heavily emphasize that I'd like someone to userfy this if it is deleted. I have a very strong suspicion that she'll be mentioned in the future in women's study and human sexuality texts, so if that does happen we can always have a clean copy to pull from. (A feminism WP editor would be best, but I'm willing to put it in my userspace as well.) However I'm kind of unsure as to whether or not we have enough coverage to really justify an article at this time. It could really go either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep: I'm with Tokyogirl79 on this, it could go either way. The story has recently appeared also on Fox News and New York Post as well as the respectable CBS News. These are very recent entries (5 March 2014) so we are at best only just clearing the single-event hurdle. The CNN report and the CBS article suggests that the story is moving from what started as frankly tabloid titillation to serious discussion, reflection and reportage; the Daily Mail article today (7 March 2014) is a relatively reliable source, being (for those unfamiliar with the British press) somewhere between the red-top tabloids and serious newspapers. Das Bild (in German, 6 March 2014) is similarly on the borderline between serious and glitzy. I'd say the subject was clearly shown to be noteworthy, given that the absurd cost of tuition fees in different countries is driving students to all manner of ploys. Belle Knox has certainly achieved notoriety in a BLP1E manner, and appears very likely to continue to be cited as a prime example by the serious press around the world. Once the New York Times and The Guardian have talked about it, there will be no doubt this should be a Wikipedia article. Right now, it's very close to the required level. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong keep. I'm also torn between delete and keep as others editors are, but based on the attention this has been getting I'd say keep. This doesn't appear to be just another porn star being outed, it's actually one who stands up and fights back. Huffington Post[22] puts it a little more into context and The Independent[23] also has it covered. Although this may only be one single event, I think the coverage is worthy of a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjelleklang (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Having observed the response on this I'm now certain that this should be a keep. The Guardian writes "Public humiliation is humanity’s age-old punishment for sluts, in America as anywhere else" [24]. Both she and several of the sources covering this event (including everything from blogs and gossip sites to realible sources) have covered the fact that she became a porn actress in order to finance her studies, but also how she was treated once outed and how this changed and went public after responding to the initial bullying and threats. There has also been follow-ups to this story, where several sources try to put it into a bigger picture on how woman are treated for having similar desires as men, or when they try to make independent and unusual choices. Looking at BLP1E I observe the following:
  • Reliable sources cover her for being outed as a porn star and the bullying associated with it. They also puts the bullying into a bigger context of threats and violence against women, and for me this goes beyond the "one event" rule.
  • She initially wanted to be low-profile, but when the story exploded (after giving initial anynonomous interviews) she went public, got worldwide attention and not only attacked the bullies but also on the way society discriminates against "woman who transgresses the norm"[25]. By doing this, and also appearing on television she made a choice to stand up and become a public figure (at least to a certain extent).
BLP1E says that it should only apply for low-profiled people, but in my opinion that doesn't matter in this case as the specific event has grown into a much bigger thing. Bjelleklang - talk 20:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I created this, I thought about the fact that she might not even be notable due to the one even rule. Since then, as mentioned above, I have seen Belle's name in a discussion about the news media and sensationalism, as well as multiple news sites. The fact that she had been communicating on oxJane in order to discuss these events, and not just from a "Hey, look at me!" stand shows that even the smaller news sites have picked up her story and want to run with it as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No offense to the subject or anyone else's rationale, but this isn't a new thing at all; back in the 90's the major networks and Lifetime harangued the public with 'I strip to pay for college' news stories/TV movie adaptations all the time, and this isn't very different from that at all besides the new twist of online harassment. I have WP:BLP1E concerns, along with the usual "speck in the 24 hour news cycle" facet these stories usually get. Nate • (chatter) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously this is BLP1E/ONEEVENT and rather pruriently so too. Its far too early to see the enduring level of courage needed to overcome 1E and the argument about her going public rather miss the point that she did so to defend herself from personal attacks and abuse. Sorry but there is too much harm here for BLP in what can only ever be a sensational non-educational article. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the better newspapers is far from prurient - it is reflective, intelligent and discursive, given the seriousness of the issues of society's provision of education, and more. The 1E thing is starting to look wrong, too, given that she shows no sign of becoming 'low-profile' - she has indeed outed herself, and is actively publishing her own point of view on the issues. That the tabloids also did what tabloids do is a side issue - they always do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going with a "Delete" on this one – there are many, many college girls in the United States that do porn for a living. The only reason this is slightly significant is because of the school she attends; however, the information included here verges on gossip/tabloid and isn't fit for an encyclopedia. Mikecf10 (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of sounding like I am badgering here, if you read the article and what Tokyogirl79 wrote above, there is discussion on the legacy of her in the article, and there is probably more out there if I decided to actually look. To call her a porn star is a bit much, but so is putting her amongst the many college students who participate in porn each year, as she decided to come out with her struggle and put a voice to many other situations which occur on college campuses each year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, while she may have "put a voice" to those situations, her actual legacy remains to be seen. Will this fade after the month, or will this girl go on to be some sort of vocal leader in the industry? I think, for now, its just an intriguing news story. Though, I do understand your point here on the whole. Mikecf10 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that her potential is something that we obviously don't know, as we cannot see into the future (yet). Based on her prior actions, I think she will coast a bit on the fame before it settles down, and we really won't know until another year or two what her overall legacy will be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A college girl doing porn is not newsworthy or notable at all. The fact she goes to Duke or the fact her identity got out also does not make this notable.174.108.25.121 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit, I'm leaning towards changing to a weak keep. She keeps getting coverage from all over the world and she's been in several major news outlets giving interviews. This is very close to being one of the exceptions to 1E. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Just a flash in the media pan. Kaldari (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E....William 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: If this is deleted, this will likely need to be salted in order to avoid any potential re-creation. I've already had people trying to get around the protection template on the main page by adding Knox's supposed real name to the talk page. I'm half of a mind to request deletion for the time being because I have a suspicion that it'd only get continually attacked. Now if someone userfys this (I'm willing to volunteer) then I would recommend that the userpage be watched and possibly protected to avoid any attempts to vandalize that page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tokyogirl79, who is doing an excellent job cleaning up the article. Like it or not, this is a very notable case and thus qualifies for its own article. This is an exception to 1E. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I did a Google news search and there are almost 30,000 articles for her. She appeared on CNN Perice Morgan. She is taking a stand on political issue. She has spoken out on a womans right to maker her own choice. She has also on the interview on CNN made the comment that she thought this story would go away. But she said because stood up to defender her self and her choice she is still in the news. I think part of this is true. I don't think she will stay low profile if she does go to law school this will be more news and if she does work to help sex workers for a future career that will make even more news. While I know this is not strong support. I say keep it up just because she is making news Jsgoodrich (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes the GNG. She does not qualify for BLP1E as she is not a low profile individual considering she's a porn star and she put herself on Piers Morgan. Furthermore her being a porn star who is also a Duke University student is not exactly 1E. If you consider her self-outing as the only notable 1E, her continued media appearances are separate events even if they are derived from the initial outing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not sure how relevant this is regarding notability in the light of WP:BLP1E but coverage can be found in Spanish newspapers too [26]. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it's way too early to assume this is a "single event" person with no lasting repercussions. Will she end up playing a small part in societal's reconsideration of sex workers? Too early to tell. Significantly, imho, Andrew Sullivan (one of the most visited political blogs in the world) wrote about her [27], and had a link to this very Wiki article. Sholom (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's too early to tell, we should delete the article until we're sure. We should be conservative in cases where lasting notability has not yet been established. Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why the assumption that way? If it's too early to tell, keep it. The assumption for many of the "deletes" is that her notability is temporary. But that's true of most people who break on the scene, at the start. No harm in keeping the text up there in the meantime. It's not like it's costing a lot of resources to keep it. Wikipedia is not paper. Sholom (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I compare this to the Charles Ramsey issue. He was huge in the media...got worldwide coverage...but is still basically known for a single event, which is why his name redirects to the Ariel Castro kidnappings. I believe George Zimmerman also used to link to an article about the Trayvon Martin murder shooting until he became (in)famous on his own with all of his post-trial behavior. When Belle Knox becomes infamous on her own or does something of merit (other than get exposed by a classmate), then she'll warrant her own article. Until then, she's just some random porn actress with a temporary spotlight. LoomisSimmons (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Would this merit a mention in the applicable pages for pornography and its criticism? Maybe Feminist views of pornography or Internet pornography? Or perhaps a mention at Student_debt#Student_reactions? This is a reaction to the cost of tuition and how for her, porn was a better option than student loans. She's not the only person who has done something like this, so the subject of this (working in the sex industry as a way of dealing with debt) as a whole would be worth mentioning somewhere, and she could be a brief mention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is huge interest in her, not just as "the Duke pornstar" but also her message on female empowerment and experiences with the burdens of paying for college. Perhaps we should delete the page for Martin Luther King, Jr. He's really only notable in the context of the civil rights movement. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Tremendous amount of mainstream media coverage and discussion on her and the issues of pornography and 'slut shaming". There are other "porn stars" with Wikipedia pages.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes the WP:GNG. Not a one event person as she made multiple pornos . I did a search on her and there was a lot of returns. Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coverage on this event is worldwide. This topic has far more non-trivial coverage in reliable sources than a good chunk of this encyclopedia. Nomination is bizarr. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if the articles are all about one event, the fact that BK is a college student doing porno, WP:BLP1E overrides that fact. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you keep insist on characterizing her as just a porn star? She is being covered because she took a stand for herself and fought back against those who tried to silence and shame her. You are no better yourself if you keep countering every recent keep vote with meaningless notability criteria. She has widespread coverage and it goes beyond her just making a few films that involve sex. I know that you are probably not doing it intentionally, but going after these keep votes is harassment by Wikipedia standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I never characterized her as a "porn star". Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My apologies, as I meant to imply that when you focus on one aspect of her work and ignore everything else (i.e. the coverage about her which doesn't talk about her film work, which is a lot when compared to people who actually have awards for this stuff), you can easily blanket over the other things that she has done. I'm not pointing at you in that previous sentence, but having tunnel vision in something like this doesn't serve to help this debate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive media coverage clearly indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensive media coverage satisfies WP:GNG - so much so the pundits seem to think this could damage her future professional aspirations. Sure, she might be the flavor-of-the-month in porn strumpets (Melissa King now redirects to a section on Miss Delaware Teen USA that calls her performance frigid), but the coverage on this one is significant and likely will have larger implications. Well, I gather she's notable per the reputable news sources enough to have Wikipedia spread the word. I think that word is "legs". Sad commentary on women's studies. --ColonelHenry (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insofar as the case has been a fulcrum for discussions about gender roles, the accetability or lack thereof as pornographic actors as legitimate professions, et al, Belle Knox is a sparking incident. But it's still one-event coverage with some BLP concerns. As such I think BLP1E trumps. As noted elsewhere, discussion around the topic may in fact by relevant in non-person-centered articles, but a biography is not the place for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spoonkymonkey and Mosfetfaser. Article should be moved though to reflect her actual name - [redacted] - which is now a well publicized fact[28][29]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem (as others have mentioned) is that we have no way of knowing if the name is true or not. It probably is, but as one of those sources say: Several blogs identified her as [redacted]. . We normally wouldn't consider a blog a reliable source, so why should we do that now? Bjelleklang - talk 20:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - People are using WP:BLP1E as a justification to delete this article. But that argument is becoming less and less convincing as news coverage shifts from college student turned porn actress to other major issues in our society like woman's right, freedom, bullying to even whether U.S. college is overpriced. This is no longer one event, IMO. Reliable sources no longer cover Knox solely in the context of porn, but have extended to other issues as well. Whether Knox remains a low-profile individual remains to be seen, but it is not unreasonable to assume that she would be cited as an example in literatures regarding woman's freedom or bullying of sex workers.—Chris!c/t 23:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The facts are, Knox meets the DEFINITION of a BLP1E because:
      • "...reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Right now she's only known for her porn side projects.
      • "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Will anyone care about Belle Knox in 1, 2, 5, 10 years? consider that.

Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can also argue that she doesn't meet BLP1E because she appears to have become a high-profile individual (after her blogposts at XOJane), and also that this event has become about something bigger than her outing. We don't know what will happen in 1, 2, 5 or 10 years, so we can only look at the coverage now and base notability on that. For me she is notable, more so since there has been more or less worldwide coverage from multiple reliable sources. If she however turns out to vanish after this has settled we can always renominate the article for deletion at a later stage. Bjelleklang - talk 07:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will anyone care about Belle Knox in 1, 2, 5, 10 years? No one can say for sure. That is the problem. And I argue that this is beyond one event at this point. The dialogue has gone from porn to bigger issues that I mentioned earlier.—Chris!c/t 00:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Back when the story first broke, this would have been a BLP1E issue, with the event being "outing of a Duke University porn student." But as the story has gone on, she's being used in other context, in other stories - "porn student outed for doing porn" and "porn student had to do porn to pay for school" are different stories, as the second has been standing alone in independent coverage, divorced from the first story. She's not a low-profile individual at this point and I don't think, even if she was, that we're even dealing with one event anymore. The variety of coverage of this individual strongly suggests to me that that she falls squarely within the general notability guidelines. Guidelines for porn notability don't really apply here either as the basis of the arguments for her notability aren't based on her personal accomplishments in the pornographic industry, they're based on the general guidelines. It's irrelevant that Lee Harvey Oswald fails WP:SOLDIER because his notability is derived from another story, even if the abilities he trained in were utilized in that other story. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete-Archive and reevaluate later - the creation of this article was just way too soon. Literally a couple of hours before this article was created, User:Rebecca1990 and I were discussing the idea of this article, but agreed that it would be an obvious BLP1E violation. Granted its an unfortunate situation for the student, but other than the mention that I've added to the Tasha Reign article and any related references, this person does not seem to warrant their own article at this time. per SportFan below, changed my mind. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of coverage and clearly beyond a single event now: the article is not only about the outing event. - Altenmann >t 06:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This boils down to a passing phenomenon and one event, with no broad and long lasting coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is feature on rue89 (in French), I think is strong notoriety. Maybe we should revisit the pertinence of this article in a few years, but for now she is getting enough attention in a lot of different media to justify keeping the article. --Guillcote (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG, and well beyond BLP1E, which is more to cover someone embarrassing themselves, and being caught on video, and notable for only that, usually against their wishes. This is someone leveraging their situation, and media spotlight, to speak on issues important to them. The rest is clean-up issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
That's a compelling argument in my opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think that might be going in the wrong direction. It would create an WP:Undue situation where we ignore relevant content about her, and her ideas, that are not then specifically about just the controversy. I think it's better to treat her story in its entirety, and allow events to be reported in proportion to what reliable sources weigh them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
She never said that about the topic of men watching porn. The majority of articles out there about her are not about the controversy, but about her as a person, and to say otherwise is to ignore the fact that a lot of people really don't care that she has done porn but a lot of those people care that she is being harassed for doing such a thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Never said what? In any case I still disagree, i think the subject should be about her entire story, not just on the controversy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Oh shoot, I meant to indent that so that it wouldn't look like a reply to you. In terms of what she never said, I misread what he said about her comparison. In terms of moving the article, I think it would be better addressed in Feminist views of pornography, as she is clearly notable at this point as a person, moreso than as a controversy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone seems to be missing the point about WP:BLP1E! Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, the point of BLP1E is to protect people from being publicly shamed for a one-time mistake, or embarrassing moment caught on video, or otherwise publicized. Like an obese person, who falls down, and the video becomes a well-documented meme. This is simply a different situation. There is no one event, but a series of related events, including her own efforts to publicize her side of the story, in at least three media forums. As it stands now, she is working to control the messages about her, and use the platform to talk about issues important to her. The article perhaps doesn't meet Pornbio, but it doesn't meet BLP1E. It does meet GNG. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    • Arbor, I have been watching your actions here, and I respect your opinion. However, since you nominated this almost a week ago, two-thirds of the community has supported keeping this article, and there has been continuous coverage of her in the news. Additionally, you have continued to point out to some of those people that she is not notable. You made a point the first time when you nominated this thing, and continued harassment of other editors is not acceptable. None of the supporters ever said that she passed PORNBIO (heck, I as the article creator never even thought she did), and she clearly has other coverage available. By continuing to state that she is subject to PORNBIO (and continually placing messages throughout this discussion to that effect), you are ignoring the fact that she is a social activist and degrading her role in society. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbor, you seem not to understand the second criteria of BLP1E, specifically what makes a low profile individual. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure it completely fails PORNBIO, but I would rather see the article kept. Web Warlock (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. People who want this article deleted should find a more compelling argument than WP:BLP1E. First, the same nominator, in his deletion rationale, basically says this is not a BLP1E case ("So far this person's life seems to meet the first 2 of these 3 criterion" when BLP1E requires each of three conditions to be met). Furthermore, actually, the subject seems to fail every BLP1E criterium, as the person is no longer being covered by reliable sources just in the context of a single event, the person is not a low-profile individual, and her individual's role is substantial. Cavarrone 06:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E with all this tabloid media coverage, some of the keep rationales are flawed, stating that she doesn't meet WP:BLP1E because she did movies and so forth, the news coverage borderlines on tabloid junk, and she's been accepting of that personality. But per our guidelines, the policy is clear. Secret account 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure Secret, the policy is clear, and you are spectacularly failing to explain how this one meets the three conditions of BLP1E. And referring to CNN and Time as tabloid junk is just laughable. I assume your comment is a book case of a POV, non-policy based vote that the closer will easily discard in his close. Cavarrone 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No this isn't a POV non-policy based vote. You are stating this because you want the article to be kept. This isn't Wikipedia material, it's a case of recenstism from slow news stories because she is a brave young woman who reacted to a serious circumstance in her personal life with dignity and strength. If she becomes a more vocal activist, she might become notable for an article in the future but right now it's too soon to tell, and I'm standing by my rationale. Secret account 20:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your "standing by your rationale" Secret, but laughable assumptions such as yours about CNN and Time being tabloid junk are, with respect, a bookcase of POV. Also, relying on BLP1E but failing to explain how this one meets the three criteria of BLP1E carries no weight to your argument. So, do you want to make a strong policy-based argument for deleting the article under BLP1E? Please explain us how this subject meets each of three required conditions to be a BLP1E. Cavarrone 21:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This topic became a national story that was followed on CNN, Huffington Post and other major news outlets. It was a story because of the high cost of a college education would cause a student to consider choosing to perform in adult films, which is not really viewed in a positive manner by a majority of people. It then got further notice when the actress defended it as her choice which is an issue because many people see adult film as exploitative for the people in the films. Therefore I think this article should be kept as a reference, even though it is an awkward topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavM (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP:GNG is exactly what it says it is: a general guideline. It's supplemented by policies like WP:BLP, other guidelines like WP:PORNBIO, and good judgment. Knox fails PORNBIO by a mile like thousands of other college students who do sex work, so we're in the slightly fuzzier area of whether her response to her otherwise routine outing makes her notable. I think it's fairly clear from WP:1E that it doesn't, and honestly I don't see how you can read that guideline and think otherwise. Some of the policy-based keep !votes seem to really be arguing that her outing is notable as an event, which per Jinkinson would necessitate moving the article to Belle Knox controversy or Belle Knox outing. But as several editors point out above, pornstar outings are routine and hence out by WP:DOGBITESMAN. There's been more coverage than usual, but the dog bite does not become notable when Piers Morgan interviews the man about it; see WP:SENSATION. This is a textbook example of the sort of routine event that WP:EVENTCRIT rules out explicitly. Last, but certainly not least, WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy, of which WP:BLP1E is just one piece. It exists to prevent Wikipedia from joining this sort of frenzy around a living person, for reasons of ethics and liability. We have a responsibility to avoid participating in her outing. Lagrange613 23:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:EVENTCRIT itself supports keeping, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline. I also suggest this is no routine outing and that @GustavM: has this caged correctly, a national story because of the circumstances, followed by her unrepentant confronting of the circumstances. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
It is the height of recentism to ascribe "enduring historical significance" to any aspect of this. This ain't the Battle of Waterloo. Lagrange613 23:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not ascribing historical significance, the sources are and we can only report on where they go. Please direct the Waterloo arguments for the national media that are reporting on this, we are only following their led. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Good luck finding a reliable source ascribing enduring historical significance to this month-old event; absent such a source the argument for keeping falls flat. Even if you could, per WP:SENSATION we need to exercise judgment when evaluating bursts of media activity. Lagrange613 23:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have already made that connection, they have made it a chapter in history, on a national level, and are still doing so. Obviously any lasting effects should be documented as well, but i think we are well past GNG, and BLP1E no longer applies. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Well, one prediction I'm fairly comfortable in making is that in several years, assuming Knox stays at Duke and graduates, there will be press again about this talking about how a "porn star just graduated from Duke". For all we know, she could become the next Gloria Steinem (or Gloria Leonard for that matter), but that's pure speculation at this point. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer decision for a couple of months per WP:RAPID. As an individual who appears to have no issue "owning" her 15 minutes there is no reason to rush to deletion here, but if she falls out of the news cycle without any additional developments then I think her lack of notability will be apparent with some time for perspective. VQuakr (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am not saying that notability is temporary, so linking that section of the policy is a non sequitur. The news still reporting on her over a week after this began is (for me at least) proof of nothing. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the very least Miss Knox is worth a paragraph in articles about tuition fees, or student loans in the US. That 18-year-olds are asked to choose between graduating with debt and becoming a sex worker is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.147.8 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
There's a source for that too, a Leeds University study, at least in regard to stripping and erotic dancing. [30] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AFAICT, this is a "single event story" which has been picked up by popular media -- but that does not change the "single event" nature of the entire story. She is not notable except for the "outing" and without the "outing" she would remain totally unknown. This is a policy based !vote -- and the !votes based on "it has a lot of coverage" do not negate BLP1E. Votes based on it being about tuition etc. are simply not relevant to this discussion IMHO, and should be discounted notably. Collect (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the essence of BLP1E in this case. Knox isn't being shamed by any one event that she regrets, she was outed because of her porn work, and then went on national television talking about the underlying issues that came out of those many incidents. You can't unring a bell here by declaring she is only notable for the outing, whether that's true or not, it has happened, and she did not run away or hid from the events. She stood up and faced the bullies and threats head on. The only issue is do we wait for her to reveal her own name, or do we decide what is the tipping point for including it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Um -- there is very little to be gained by you trying to respond to those who do not hold your opinion. In fact,I rarely see anyone change there !vote upon being accosted in that manner. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article and the bit you add about "shame" is not part of the policy, and the unproduced "threats" which you provided are milder than threats I have received personally. People who seek fame from a single event are fully as covered as anyone else on Wikipedia. Your "unring a bell" analogy is absolutely inapt as an argument here -- just as those who seek Wikifame because of one event also do not get BLPs about themselves. In fact, most of the self-promotional BLPs are unceremoniously deleted. Cheers and kindly do not respond to my !votes on any page. Collect (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have no concern, I have confidence that reasonable editors will see your comments as they are, and avoid judging my response, as "accosting." The harassment, threats of rape, physical attacks, on her campus, and death threats, were directed at Knox. Dismiss them if you choose, they sure do seem real to her, and the national media that have discussed them with her, and in relation to her being outed. If you think the article should be deleted because its promotional tone, I think you're reading a different article than the rest of us. And that would remain a clean up issue. And your !votes are not immune from anyone responding to them, if you don't want them responded to then don't register them. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete There is no biography to write. It's a news article. Details of her life are problematic including using her name. If we had an article on porn stars working their way through college, she may be mentioned as one in that article but there is too much privacy invasion and WP:BLP1E for a biography. --DHeyward (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this one... Is it any wonder student turn to porn to pay college costs which references this interview. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:39, 18 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STMIK Kharisma

STMIK Kharisma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:GNG WP:NSCHOOL WP:ORG. A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. *Annas* (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World classic audiobooks

World classic audiobooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few sources establish notability. Small self-publisher of audiobooks read by one narrator Ryan James. The creator of this article also did a lot of editing of Ryan James. GreenC 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 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) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obrazovanshchina

Obrazovanshchina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N This appears to be a term invented by Solzhenitsyn meaning "pseudo-intelligentsia"; insufficient evidence that this term is really used in English. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alex B.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2014; 13:47 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hey, Alex, nice to pass by you again. And - you are right. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the responses. I am persuaded that "delete" is probably not the right thing to happen. But I wonder whether this is really best as an independent article, or could be included as a section within "Intelligentsia", of course with a redirect as well? It seems to me that otherwise the number of people who will realistically read this is vanishingly small. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I know quite a few articles with vanishingly small readers (in fact, I wrote several hundred of them myself :-). The page is wikilinked from "intelligentsia" (and from some other pages), so readability is not an issue. The concepts are pretty much separate, and WP:NOTPAPER rule allows them to have their own life. The goal of wikipedia is to make information searchable and available, rather than to push it down readers' throats, so the number of readers is not an issue beyond various wiki pissing contests ("most visited page", editcountitis, etc.). - Altenmann >t 04:08, 13 March 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 (withdrawn). AFD is not clean-up, but sometimes that's what ends up happening in a collaborative environment. Nice work folks. Stalwart111 08:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Martin (disambiguation)

Abby Martin (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page disambiguates three topics, but two of them are red links. MOS:DABRL says

A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page.

I did that and found that no other pages link to Abby Martin (fictional) or to Abigail Martin (professor). Neither the Sarah Orne Jewett article nor the Brooklyn College article contain the word "Martin", reinforcing my impression that it's unlikely someone will write articles on the red-linked topics. —rybec 04:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because page has been improved. —rybec 08:49, 7 March 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 Billy Talent III. WilyD 11:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond on a Landmine

Diamond on a Landmine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:NSONG, I'm seeing zero reliable sources covering this song, and the bulk of the content is clearly original research. It apparently peaked at #88 on Canadian Hot 100 (though the citation for this doesn't support it). That doesn't seem enough to establish notability. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 04:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Billy Talent III, the song's parent album. At the least, the song title is a plausible search term. I'm not seeing much in terms of coverage, though (this is the most I could find), and the chart position alone is not enough to convince me that a standalone article is warranted.  Gong show 18:27, 8 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fulmer Cup

Fulmer Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected PROD. PROD rationaile stands: "Non-notable gag award created by a non-notable blogger that has serious BLP issues. Fails WP:N." Just because the blog is run/hosted by SBNation (one of the reasons for the PROD rejection) doesn't make the blog notable or reliable; and there is no significant coverage outside of the blog itself to establish notability, and the WP:BLP issues here are massive. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alice In Thunderland

Alice In Thunderland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as multiple issues since 2009, and there are no available sources, Fails WP:FAILN Cwobeel (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 February 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 7 March 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 and redirect to Ukraine's Got Talent. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alla Kushnir (dancer)

Alla Kushnir (dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. No outside, third-party references in media or anywhere else outside of a YouTube video. The Gnome (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 19 February 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 12:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're the same ones I also found through web searches on the net, besides YouTube. One is about "Russian belly dancing" and simply lists belly dancers with their portfolio, and the other a website mostly about would-be Ukrainian brides. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 25 February 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 7 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullpoo

Bullpoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website is currently defunct and not really notable. Article has had multiple issues since 2009; last edit before today was in 2011. Amp71 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:56, 7 March 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 deleted by admin Jimfbleak (G11). (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 09:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nektel Araz

Nektel Araz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per reliable sources. References given in the article do not mention him, and a Google search ("Nektel Araz") brings up 7 results, six of them are Wikipedia or mirrors, and one is Facebook. ... discospinster talk 00:39, 7 March 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 On2 Technologies. The article's page history has been preserved in case anyone wants to boldly merge anything. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TrueMotion

TrueMotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is stub-quality and all info in it is included in On2 Technologies with more detail. Should convert to redirect. SilverbackNet(talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SilverbackNet(talk) 00:49, 7 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_March_7&oldid=1142628129"