Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 29

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WeOurFamily

WeOurFamily (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)

Unremarkable social network. All sources are primary, no reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though it was one of the four post-2007 social networking sites to be briefly studied in a book, I don't think that alone meets WP:GNG. The 2009 CNN Report is user-submitted and not verified by CNN. Can find no other independent coverage. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Circle

The Glass Circle (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 film not yet filming. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per failing WP:NFF as an article on upcoming film which has not yet begun filming. It's simply TOO SOON. If author wishes to work on it in a sandbox, fine.... but not ready for mainspace. Discolsure: Daeg Faerch and I were both in the 2008 film Delaney, and while his role was smaller, we shared no scenes, we never actually met, and I have absolutely no interest in promoting he or his career. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above fails WP:NFF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gursharn Singh Randhawa

Gursharn Singh Randhawa (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)

Not a notable figure. Article not sourced. No significant contribution to Indian Science could be found on google. Educationtemple (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN, a notability search comes up with Dr. Randhawa's work but not coverage on his work, so while worthwhile it isn't notable. per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing this content in WikiBios or another Wiki but it falls short of an encyclopedic topic. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotsna Dhawan

Jyotsna Dhawan (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)

Notability missing. No coverage in media for whatsoever contribution to Indian Science and Technology. Article not sourced, or sourced with unreliable citations such as PHDTREE. WP is not a replacement for facebook page. Educationtemple (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN, Only references in article are primary sources. Search shows that he has written a fair bit of material but the material isn't notable since it hasn't received significant secondary coverage. Per WP:ALTERNATIVE I recommend writing this content in WikiBios not an encyclopedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FAILN and does not WP:PROF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.35.94 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst on the toilet

Whilst on the toilet (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)

PROD tag removed, so bringing it to AfD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Pishcal — ♣ 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Cunard (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find any independent coverage per WP:GNG —maclean (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failed WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Dismuke

Jamie Dismuke (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 minor league player/coach, fails GNG. Not sure why PROD was removed. Wizardman 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the page creator, and creating this page was a mistake. I made it because the Atlanta Braves had him work with the major league team in September 2010, which I thought made him meet WP:BASE/N. However, he's not listed at http://mlb.mlb.com/atl/history/coaches.jsp, the site that lists all of the Braves' historical coaches, and there aren't sources to meet GNG. I don't know why PROD was removed either. The edit summary for that edit made no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most MLB organizations have minor league coaches travel with the team in September, primarily to work with the minor leaguers that are part of the september roster call-ups.. that doesnt make them Major League coaches. Spanneraol (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and page creator. ― Padenton|✉   21:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted? Consensus looks extremely clear. Wizardman 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Metz

Jake Metz (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)

high school football player - dubious notability Melaen (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Arena Football player for Philadelphia Soul (see;http://www.philadelphiasoul.com/index.cfm?go=team&show=bio&id=335) , most Arena Players have a Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesFan1993 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a poorly written non-article-article. userfy? If the creator is enthusiastic on the subject okay, but beef up that article first.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while it is true that anyone who has played in an Arena Football League game passes WP:NGRIDIRON, Metz does not appear to have met this threshold. There is no other evidence of notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -not every arena league, just Arena Football League per WP:NGRIDIRON--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't how I interpreted it... but WP:OHWELL-Paul McDonald (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Players Tournament

Emerging Players Tournament (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)

Delete. No development since tag was placed over two years ago. Unsourced, probably not notable. Apparently abandoned. Adds little if any value. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Discontinued tournament for players not good enough to play in the normal domestic competitions. Consequently barely any interest/media coverage, even in cricket-specialist websites. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Joon-young filmography

Jung Joon-young filmography (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 list of every single reality show, music show, and radio show appearance by singer Jung Joon-young. As per repeated consensus, such lists are not appropriate for Wikipedia and such lists have been consistently closed as "delete" at AFD. The only material appropriate are the three roles at the beginning, acting roles in film and TV. They are already mentioned at Jung Joon-young but could be also included in a filmography section in a table of that article, as well, if someone so desired. Absolutely no need for a standalone filmography article, as there is insufficient material to merit one. Also, this entire article is unsourced. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Most of this material is more appropriate for a fansite. For example, all K-pop artists perform regularly on music shows so there's no reason to list them all here. Major variety show roles like We Got Married are already mentioned on the main article. Random86 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Alexander

Monique Alexander (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)

Subject fails current WP:PORNBIO requirements. Pax 03:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I won't make a comment on her looks as that would be very inappropriate of me wouldn't it, Anyway unfortunately fails PORNBIO + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 12:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Searches for RS coverage yield announcements and reprinted press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - winner of AVN Award. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not any AVN award counts. Group scenes are not applicable (and "All-girl"-whatever is not a significant award for individual merit). Pax 04:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mr. Subtropical's "winner of AVN Award" entry above is plainly against the current version of WP:PORNBIO, which excludes group awards. The consensus of the Wikipedia community trumps personal opinions regarding a notability guideline, thus this vote should be discarded in the final tally. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. Please do not write about my person and my vote. I have the right to vote and you have no right to troll my voice only because it is a different opinion. Also, I agree with opinions by GuzzyG and Rebecca1990. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man:, I am heartened to hear the fact that you have now read WP:PORNBIO, but a slight problem remains. WP:PORNBIO states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.", yet Ms. Alexander's 4 AVN wins are for "All-Girl (2)", "Couples (1)", and "Group Sex (1)" categories. Can you explain how "winner of an AVN award" is valid, when the guideline you're basing that vote on excludes the types of awards that the subject has one? Tarc (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...besides I think, Monique Alexander is notable independently of several awards. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Has received coverage both within the industry ([1] & [2]) and outside of it ([3] & [4]) Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Linking to a search for the subject at XBIZ and AVN is extremely lame and if you want to cite sources you need to actually cite a source not provide the porn equivalent of a google search. Complex is a dreadful source - tabloid and the about link doesn't link anything and being 20 something in a random list of pornstars for some reason doesn't appear in the GNG or PORNBIO. The FT link is the best of the bunch as it by a proper reporter who interviews her at the end. Its not an article about here but there are nods in the direction of notability there even if it is a bit thin in my opinion. I would say that this on its own isn't enough but 3-4 similar sources would be good enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FT link appears to be behind a paywall. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Meets WP:PORNBIO #3 too ("Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"):

1. Was interviewed on Chelsea Lately ([5])

2. Appeared in an episode of Entourage ([6])

3. Participated in a debate about pornography on Nightline ([7])

4. Appeared on Red Eye to discuss a sex education study ([8]) Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rebecca1990's reasoning. Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As usual, rebecca1990's reasoning is flawed, digging up te same brief name-drops and unreliable sources. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Trivial mentions in fashion magazines, e.g. "top 100 porn stars", do not satisfy the notability guidelines, nor does the subject meet any criteria of wp:pornbio. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am going to have to say keep to this due to being in a mainstream ABC Nightline televised debate held at yale to discuss pornography, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/2/22/yale-grants-self-one-week-of/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/11/idUS174192+11-Feb-2008+BW20080211 add that with what Rebecca found (was interviewed as a guest on a late night tv show!), cameo in a mainstream cable tv show (Entourage) plus her HBO softcore work, according to her imdb a minor role in the mainstream film Crank: High Voltage those added up fit WP:PORNBIO N3 well in my mind, also we should not discount the 4 minor awards yes they are minor but combined with the appearances it should nudge her over our guidelines. Remember not everyone wins the "best" award in their career but seeing as she gets chosen for debates on Fox News and at Yale, plus the multiple appearances in mainstream media + her four minor awards should make up for no major award and finally a talk radio gig http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=84904&mi=all&q=tera. GuzzyG (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Invalid. The college newspaper covers the debate and mentions Ms. Alexander a single time in a single sentence. As for Reuters, did you note the "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release" line at the top of the link? Press releases are specifically excluded from notability consideration, per WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reuters is not responsible? and what? I do not see anything wrong. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 14:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a part of (emphasis mine) ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" (WP:GNG) that you find unclear? Tarc (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read intro of Wikipedia:Notability (including WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG): "It is a generally (sic. not officially) accepted standard that editors should (sic. not must) attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense (sic. !!!), and occasional exceptions may apply (sic. !!!). Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page". So, fails current WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG (both parts of Wikipedia:Notability) requirements is not synonym for automatic removal. If there are the opinions to keep the article, this article should be keep. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it fails to pass either the GNG or PORNBIO. /slow clap Tarc (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even, if fails GNG/PORNBIO - there are doubts as to whether, GNG/PORNBIO is not mandatory and this is not official rule to compulsory use with no exceptions. Monique Alexander is encyclopedic person for many users, so. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in altering guidelines that have been agreed to by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, then by all means feel free to raise those ideas in the appropriate venue. That is how editors tightened WP:PORNBIO to exclude group awards and multiple nominations recently. Like it or not, we discuss deletions via the criteria that we have, not the criteria that we wish we could have, to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld. You're also resorting to an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument now, which is not valid in an AfD. Your voting record, in case you are interested, is currently running at a 26.1% success rate. Being wrong isn't a wiki-crime, but it may be somewhat of an indicator as to how far afield an editor is from best practices in the project. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above "Please do not write about my person and my vote". Apply to this. Next your post about my person will be automatically reverted, reason: trolling and personal attack and spamming. This page is Articles for deletion/Monique Alexander, not about me. By the way, how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP? Where is consensus about current WP:PORNBIO requirements? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When editors ignore established guidelines and make poor arguments to support their deviations, I will call them out on that. As for how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP, I cannot even begin to fathom how to respond to something so absurd. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again: where is (please link) consensus for current WP:PORNBIO requirements? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be nice today and point out the RfC in question. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know that about Reuters so i apologize, but i do believe the debate, the talk show interview and other stuff should push her over GNG, either way i don't mind, i will admit that i do think Pornography inclusion guidelines are very strict and if this was a mainstream film actress she would pass, but that's a discussion for WP:PORNBIO. Thank you for that tool by the way Tarc shame my record is 36%, bad judgement with the table hockey tournaments, live and learn! Subtropical-man we as editors can't ignore policy as that would defeat the point of the project even if i myself disagree with some WP:PORNBIO or WP:PERP, says more about the media who don't report on pornography then anything anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pretty much for the reasons given by Tarc. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Decent sourcing hasn't emerged so I'm going to go with my comments on Rebecca1990's vote above and say this isn't across the line. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only mentions are trivial and do not meet the GNG by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Emerging Investigators

Journal of Emerging Investigators (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 journal publishing just a handful of articles each year. Not indexed in any selective databases. There are a few independent sources, but they all mention the journal just in passing: they are about one particular student article, not the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. It fails to meet the standards set forth for notability of journals. Perhaps the author of the notable student piece should have an article, but not the journal itself.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while it is true that this does not pass WP:NJournals, that failure is trumped by the fact that it does pass WP:GNG The articles, from Wired, Miami Herald, and Nature cover this journal as a unique effort in teaching science, and are backed by the Kelsey/Lincoln article "Next-generation training: publishing student scientists’ research" These 4 articles, references 2 thru 5 form the core of my argument for GNG status. They are thorough, in depth discussions this journal and the educational work that it does. the rest of the sources - addressing a particular paper that caught the fancy of the press - serve to illustrate the journal's utility, and to corroborate its notability. It's a nice article. And it's nice to see a new editor create a good article on a notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That's weird! When I click the links to the sources you mention, I see different articles than you do! The Wired article is 50% copied from the journal's own website and the byline reads "'Chuck is a proud geek and a dad. By day he works in Information Technology in Higher Ed. By night he is a producer and musician playing bass in the Milwaukee band, "The Vitrolum Republic."' Seems more like a blog post than editorially-verified content. The Miami Herald article that I see only mentions the journal in passing (certainly not in a "thorough, in depth" way) and is about two school kids. The Nature "reference" is indeed extensive, but it is a post on their "guest blog" and not published by Nature itself. The author is the founder of this journal, so it is not precisely independent either. In short, as far as I can see, this is a clear failure of GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wired has a bit of style, it includes a serious journalist calling himself GeekDad, & packing a lot of accurate info into a small space. The Herald, a major daily, showcases this tool for teaching science with real reporting. Nature allocates space to the creators to showcase themselves. That's a lot of serious coverage in major places for a small science-teaching project in the form of a journal. It is the very stuff of notability. And some of the rest of the coverage is the articles about that print font project are more than a passing mention. The Huff Post essay describes the process in which journal editors worked with the student to improve the project's design after the initial article submission. (WP:NJournals exists because we know that many of the most important journals can pass only under such a SNG, the Miami Herald and Forbes Magazine don't write features about them, so we judge their notability in other ways. WP:NJournals is a Subject-specific Notability Guideliness. While editors are encouraged to look toward Subject-specific Notability Guideliness when the primary notability guideline is failed, when WP:GNG is NOT failed, we need not look to various SNGs to decide that the primary notability guideline can be ignored and decide, contrary to the instruction of the primary notability guideline, that established notability does not exist. The SNGs do not overrule the GNG. What was brought to AFD here is a decent article that is well-sourced, passes GNG, is informative to readers, and which serves the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm the author of the article, and so while I'm obviously biased, I wanted to make a comment to correct some misconceptions. I'm new to WP and this is my first article, so I'm not as familiar with the standards other than those I've read from WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. I'll leave the continued discussion up for the other editors on here, as they would know better than me. To be clear, I have done some work with the journal (I won't deny a close connection to the subject), and I think that it is notable for what it does, as well as the press that it has received. The website (or Google Scholar) clearly illustrates that the journal publishes more than 'just a handful' of articles a year (25 articles in the first 3 months of 2015). To my knowledge, none of the articles -- with the exception of the Trends in Pharmocological Science and Nature article, which look like invited submissions and typical for science journals-- were written by anyone associated with the organization. If you read any of the articles about the featured kids (take for example the CNN article), the journal is mentioned more than just in passing, and there is a quote from the journal's founder about how they encouraged the kid to find out how much the government could save on ink. In my mind, this is an example of a good educational organization / journal at work. I didn't include the articles that just mentioned the journal in passing, but how many public news articles are written about a journal itself? The public doesn't see the CNN article about Nature magazine, but they do see the article about that cool new study coming out of Nature magazine. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any scientific journal aimed at kids which is listed in Scopus, but to my knowledge, the Journal of Emerging Investigators is the only journal that is both free and takes students through a review and editorial process similar to professional journals. All the articles are on Google Scholar. To me, this knowledge and references 2-5 fulfill the WP:GNG standards. The remaining references about a notable author provide further support. Mspringel (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your passion for your journal. However, a mistake new editors often make is to think that "notable" means "worthy". That is wrong. Something bad can be notable and something very good can be not notable. The two concepts are independent. New editors, like yourself, often think that because something is worthy and worth while pursuing, it should be covered in WP. But unfortunately that is not what WP is about. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Randykitty, WP:NEWBIES. Perhaps see if there are ways to bring the article up to your standards, or wait and see how other editors view it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am familiar with NEWBIES. It does not include leaving articles that are inadequately sourced just because they are created by a new editor. Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things here. As for waiting to see what other editors think: an AFD runs for a week and this one is listed on four different lists (see the fine print above). These lists are generally watched by interested editors who then can comment if they see fit. In addition, the AFD is listed on the "article alerts" page of the academic journals project, so there is ample opportunity for other editors to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In re: NEWBIES; perhaps you could have worked with the creator for a few days, explored whether sources not have easily located existed, and retained the good will of a new editor, whether or not efforts efforts to keep this page panned out. After all, this is not the classic new article AFD in which a new editor writes a memorial page, or puts a page up for his garage band.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any sources and none have been found yet either. In addition, the article creator is a staff member of the journal. It may not be a "classical memorial page", it is a classical "my thing should be on WP" page. Taken together, I don't see much opportunity for "working with the creator". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just judge the article on its merits and the organization's notability, rather than my relationship to it. I understand if you don't think it's notable, and I respect your opinion. If the editors here agree that it's not notable, then please delete the article. If the editors decide that it can be improved and kept, then I'd be happy to help. I don't want to be a factor in the decision. I'll sticking around WP anyway, and the result of this discussion won't affect my decision to stay and help. The JEI article was just a contribution I thought I'd make because I knew a lot about the subject. Mspringel (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's what's happened. Several users have found this article to not meet WP:Notability. I, for one, believe it fails to meet that standard, regardless of your relationship to it. Therefore, it deserves deletion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Nom has started an AFD on Journal of Young Investigators.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your point being? I have started AfDs about dozens (perhaps even more, I don't keep count) of academic journals over the years. FYI, I also just PRODded The Journal of Network Theory in Finance and that one, too, will be taken to AfD if the PROD is removed without the addition of good sources showing notability. See also this one and this one, also created by an involved newbie. And that's just today. --Randykitty (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Randykitty and above. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, but this is a case of 15 minutes of fame, so GNG is not really applicable. Almost all the journals discussed on WP are here by virtue of being "important" in the sense of being indexed by the major services (per WP:NJOURNALS c1), i.e. they're well-established, archival, and report research that itself is widely cited. Doesn't seem to apply here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. As I said in the JYI AfD - the fact that this is not indexed in selective databases or doesn't meet notability for journals is completely irrelevant; that's not what this project is for. Yes, most of its mainstream coverage comes from that one paper that went viral, but there is non-trivial interest in this in science-education venues, most prominently the Kelsey paper. Nature blog posts are curated (a guest post invitation is explicitly an editorial decision and a recognition of notability with respect to the Nature audience) and Wired's goofy bylines are a distraction. Lawyering over this stuff is a waste; isn't there actual spam to go delete? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Spam does not go to AfD, we delete it speedily as WP:CSD#G11. Once an article is at AfD, the question is not whether WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that needs our attention, but whether the subject in question is notable. If you think that NJournals is irrelevant here, that's fine with me, but then it needs to meet GNG and I can't say that you make a convincing case that it does. --Randykitty (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, we only delete some of the spam speedily. If you think we are efficient at removing promotional material quickly, I think there might be some bridges for sale over here ;)

• Comment I suggested in the JYI AfD that these (and others of the genre) could be merged and redirected to a new article at undergraduate research journal or similar title. This is clearly a notable general topic that should have an article. JEI is slightly out of scope as it targets younger students, but clearly comes from the same early-STEM-education context, so I think that is a reasonable redirect target. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said at the other AfD, a new article on a more general topic, to which these two articles could redirect, seems like a good solution to me. As for the preceding comment, perhaps the new article should be student research journal, I don't see a need to split this out in different articles depending on what stage of their education the students are in. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I think the Wired and Nature coverage may be enough for WP:GNG (although I'm less impressed by the media spikes for individual flash-in-the-pan pieces of research published in this journal) and there's also a case to be made for NJournals #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep with the same reason as David E. A combined article wouldas O..r. suggests would be a good idea, but that shouldn't affect our consideration of this one individually. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Largely in line with above. Wired, Nature, the local papers, etc. look to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Wired is better than Wired blogs and Nature is better than Nature blogs, but they're still good sources for notability purposes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rivers (baseball)

Kevin Rivers (baseball) (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 minor league baseball player, now in the independent leagues with the Lancaster Barnstormers. Prod was removed and article merged at one point but target is no longer valid. Needs to be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 22:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable career minor leaguer. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. --Inother (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable minor league baseball player fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Love and the Lovers

Eddie Love and the Lovers (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)

Orphaned band article in which no other references other than the book as a citation and may not be considered notable. Also not mentioned on garage rock and may turn out to be a hoax. The Snowager-is awake 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an orphan, it's on a list and as such it has an incoming link and I've deOrphaned it. I didn't know online sources are required for articles, is http://www.naturalgeographicmagazine.com/q/Eddie%20Love%20and%20the%20Lovers not considered reliable? I'd have thought Natural Geographic Magazine would be. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The content at the Natural Geographic link (not to be confused with National Geographic) is taken from Wikipedia and so is not reliable. Everymorning talk 03:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources (coverage online consists mainly of an Amazon review and Wikipedia mirrors and there are no Google Books hits). Thus, this appears to be either a hoax or unverifiable; either way it has no place here. Everymorning talk 00:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. I think "Natural Geographic" chose that name so people would confuse it with the real magazine...? Elgatodegato (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master Ayub

Master Ayub (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)

trivial or promotional references. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is the 1st nomination. There was a database error. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The subject is notable as an educationist and is a recipient of the Pride of Performance, which is a top award. Coverage is found in multiple reliable sources, including [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and many more. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [20], [21], [22], [23]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Decent amount of coverage of this fellow well sourced and reliable sources seems a significant article. Rahulbhr (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)— Rahulbhr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and WP:TROUT - as creator of the article - I didn't get much time to spend on the article and it stayed a stub, however, the subject is quite notable; was awarded a Pride of Performance national award and holds coverage in multiple WP:RS. The subject himself does not have any internet presence nor is he a celebrity so I don't see how it could be "promotional" at all. This article is on a notable figure and the 42 recurring news references that come out just by quick google news search are not the only ones. There's vast coverage in local mainstream TV media as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K-Rino

K-Rino (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)

Seems to me a non-notable rapper, who while maybe big on the Houston hip-hop scene, isn't notable in terms of Wikipedia. kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable rapper and although some of the news websites are notable, the information about K-Rino is nonsense with no significance or notability. A News search found results but, again mostly local and nothing solid. A Books search found a few links but nothing good. I'm from Texas and I have never heard of him, but to be honest, I'm not a hip hip fan. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability guideline. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per kelapstick and SwisterTwister clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAS (Seglaw's Art Studio)

SAS (Seglaw's Art Studio) (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)

Not notable. A search brought up nothing more than social media coverage. I considered a speedy per A7, but I decided Afd would be safer. Pishcal — ♣ 19:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity bio, no sources other than self-generated as far as I can see. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Independent artist it seems with no significant or notable coverage (despite my multiple searches even at two Nigerian newspapers Guardian and Tribune). SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Athinais Culture Center

Athinais Culture Center (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)

I'm not an expert in this area, but I couldn't find reliable sources to verify WP:NOTABILITY. I always hope to be proved wrong on articles like this though. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years (tagged by Carlossuarez46; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - my goodness the links for finding sources turn up literally nothing. not notable. nice catch! Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched in Greek Jytdog?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have not. this is Wiki-en and i limit myself to english searches, generally. have you? do you have facility and greek and are you willing to provide translations for verification? Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I know enough Greek to be comfortable about fixing Google translate errors. The correct name is Athinais Cultural Center (Greek: Αθηναΐς Πολυχώρος Πολιτισμού). Both terms get a decent number of hits. The venue is used for many business-type meetings (e.g. "Google and the Foundation for Economic and Industrial Research (IOBE) present a study titled “The Internet in Greece: Obstacles and Prospects”"), commercial events (e.g. "The Meet Market: A 3-day Christmas celebration of the entrepreneurial spirit") and exhibitions (e.g. "Ancient Cretan Collection at the Athinais Source") The building itself is of some interest. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing that outAymatth2 - oy! as an event location it indeed sure to turn up in google tons of times. However, we are not a directory and notability is not based on # of google hits. I did a google search 10 pages in and found lots of passing mentions but no substantial articles about the center. what sources are there about the center that show it NOTABLE? same to you Dr. Blofeld Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A place can be notable for what happens at the place, rather than for what the place is. Battlefields are often like that. All that matters is whether there are reliable independent sources that discuss the subject or aspects of the subject in some depth. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is kind of true for some things, (depending what they are) but we have no sources saying the center is NOTABLE for anything. Not its architecture, not Important Things that Happened There. nothing. We have a directory entry. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Without them, there is no justification for keeping this article. If you are not willing/able to present sources you should let this be deleted; you can create it again later when there is a valid WP article that can be written. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to say xxx is notable because. Do you think all of those National Registry listed barns and shacks in rural Iowa etc are really notable? All a subject has to have is fair coverage in multiple reliable sources which this appears to have. It's a public building and regular venue for events so should meet GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Aymatth2♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dr. Blofeld, I think you've accidentally voted twice. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not accidentally, it's been relisted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Blofeld. Relisted or not, one is not allowed to vote more than once so I have crossed your second comment. Cheers, — Yash! ^(Y) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If something is relisted you'd presume it concludes that there was no consensus in the former listing and the slate is wiped clean to obtain another consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs are relisted to get a clearer consensus and not another consensus. Votes before the relisting are considered as well as after it. — Yash! ^(Y) 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwin Powell

James Edwin Powell (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)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Previous discussions have resulted in no consensus, mainly due to procedural issues / lack of participation, not due to an active debate where people were divided. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please can the closing admin note that I closed the previous discussion today because of canvassing by the nominator not a procedural issue and that the previous discussion to that was closed as no consensus only 3 months ago. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not using the notification system to canvass (not deliberately or with that in mind anyway, I thought it was helpful to let those who had participated in previous AfDs etc know about the discussion, whatever their opinion) and I wrote 'procedural error' not 'procedural irregularity' - meaning my error. Boleyn (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If some of the bibliography specifically discuss the subject (not just events in which the subject is alleged to have participated), then notability might exist. As it is, the references are not references (much less reliable sources) and I recommend delete.--Rpclod (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems like the only notability alleged here is inherited from his participation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article reads like original research. However, it is possible that if aspects of the article were linked to sources in the bibliography it would be more of an encyclopedia article. I personally don't know if info about this person is in the books in the bibliography, so this is a suggestion to the creator of the article, who appears to be Special:Contributions/75.83.106.140. Otherwise, it needs to be deleted because of being original research. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, first let me say I am tacking in weak due to WP:OFFLINE. The article has a rich bibliography, and I cannot assess online what level of coverage the books listed in the bibliography give to the subject of this AfD. That being said, of the online sources, non appear to give the subject significant coverage as required by WP:GNG & subject does not appear to meet WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, at this time I cannot support keeping this article, as SOLDIER does a good job at clarifying (within the military studies field) what a notable award is for servicemembers when looking at WP:ANYBIO.

This is no way disparaging the service of subject of this AfD. May he rest in peace.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author of this article has clearly worked hard on it, but even with all that work hasn't proved the subject notable. valereee (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Valera

Wilson Valera (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)

Since bullpen catchers don't count a major league coaches and don't pass WP:BASE/N, I'm not seeing Valera passing the notability guidelines Penale52 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fairly obviously fails WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BASE/N. He was an actual coach while with the Diamondbacks. He is on their historical list of coaches.[24] His article even says he was a coach. Alex (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's so, how come there was never anything written about him? This isn't a guy from the 1880s. If he's notable, I'd expect to find something. Also, please keep in mind that, as it says at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." BASE/N guidelines are provided to help us determine if it is likely that a subject passes GNG. In this case, it is quite obvious that the subject fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mellowed Fillmore makes a good point. I would give Valera the benefit of the doubt if he was a coach as late as the 1950s, not just the 1880s, but for a coach in 2010s the lack of anything substantive written about Valera is significant. The best I could find was this, which basically states "Wilson Valera is... Wait, hands up if you even knew who Wilson Valera was, let alone that he was a coach with the Diamondbacks," quotes his bio from the media guide, and then mocks his role. On Google News there is just this: One article stating that Valera is "on hand" for the year (and giving his prior year batting average), one stating that he was pinch hit for in a particular game while being 4 for 50 for the season at the time, and one stating that he struck out in a particular game but reached first on a passed ball. While a more substantial search may turn up more, given Google's abandonment of News archives, what is there doesn't make significant coverage seem likely. And while I think coaches in the traditional sense should be presumed notable, "coach of Spanish translations and assisting the real coaches" seems to need more evidence of actual notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's also received significant coverage in Colombia for his work there, so he passes GNG. [25], [26] and so forth. Alex (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One short article in Colombia now counts as enough for passing GNG? That's funny. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Wizardman 12:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugged (TV Show)

Bugged (TV Show) (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)

Cartoon I'm having trouble finding notability or refs for (the official website wasn't about the show but just to cartoon network) Now while Cartoon Network would make this notable enough-not sure at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "6 minute length"=un-nontable program created solely for continuity in markets that don't allow advertising; those that do usually don't or put them into compilation shows where unless you have a major children's network backing you, doesn't make it out from there. Nate • (chatter) 06:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Multiple searches even at Google France yielded no results aside from one press release. It seems the show must not have received much attention. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Practice Makes Perfect. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Abouelnaga

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Karim Abouelnaga (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 evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. CEO of a questionably notable company. Most of this biography is unsourced, and appears promotional- cutting down to just the sourced content would leave a very short biography. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe redirect to Practice Makes Perfect for now - News found results and a few more with a wider search and finally one Books result. Note that some of the News links aren't very useful as they were written by someone else including Karim Abouelnaga himself. The group's article needs improvement but this subject is not notable himself so redirecting would be good. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The editor who wrote this piece can simply add the info to Practice Makes Perfect. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as we have so often done before. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Riteish Deshmukh. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Film Company

Mumbai Film Company (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:GNG and WP:NCORP JMHamo (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Passing mention as a company that makes movies in India does not mean it is WP:Notable. It needs to have at least one good, strong article to attest to its importance. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

WP:INDAFD: Mumbai Film Company Riteish Deshmukh

• Redirect / merge to founder Riteish Deshmukh where we have enough sources so that it can at least be spoken of there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - News, Books and browser all found results but not exactly in-depth or about the company. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, G11. (non-admin closure) Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Socio-Cultural Management

Institute of Socio-Cultural Management (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)

Promotional article about an organization without any proof of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Speedy Gonzales, G11. Settled. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant hoax. I declined the G3 request not realizing my own research was yielding DWSS-AM not FM. Searching for "Sesame Broadcasting Corporation" should clear up any doubt of it being a hoax. Apologies on my part for misreading — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWSS-FM

DWSS-FM (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 radio station that possibly is a hoax, I could not find any evidence of their existence outside of trivial mentions in lists. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Mountain Farm

Sugar Mountain Farm (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 been subject to COI editing for years. Many of the previous sources are SPS or low quality. It is hard to tell if the news mentions are generated by a sustained publicity campaign or due to actual notability.My personal belief is it is the former. This page does not have sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Jbh^Talk 15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Based on feedback on the sources here I am withdrawing my delete support. I still feel much of the material has been generated by the farm owner such as the CNN mention where he contacted them to comment rather than the other way around. There seems to be enough to get by GNG and whether or not their techniques work they seem to have positioned themselves firmly in the specialized agricultural discussion of pasture raising pigs. Jbh^Talk 14:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a week to work on putting together the citations on notability that CorporateM asked for. Pubwvj (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There's currently very few actually good sources about it. If some can be found, then definitely keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: Here is the prior version of the article, before I trimmed almost all of it due to citations to op-eds, primary sources, brief mentions, un-reliable sources, ads, and so on. Out of the remaining sources Voice of America is a highly questionable source and many of the others are just brief mentions or quotes.[27][28][29], many of which are in local publications. I asked Pubwvj, who is affiliated with the article-subject, what the best possible source was that he felt was missing and it was from a publication that accepts crowd-sourced article submissions from its readers and does not identify any kind of editors among its staff. Generally speaking we should have at least one strong national level source with more than a couple paragraphs on this farm. I agree with giving the article-subject a week to provide any sources that may change our view, and since AfD lasts a week, that should be a suitable deadline. CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to pass notability standards, and is clearly self-promotional. From discussions on the Talk page, the sources that appear in trade magazines are crowd-sourced, and not from journalists; little more than blogs without editorial oversight. More major publications, and they receive merely passing mention. Couple this with the author of the article being the actual owner of the farm, and we have a recipe that has led to years of protracted argument on the talk page and an AN/I that is larger than the article itself. Non-notable, COI, and promotional. Scr★pIron^IV 17:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Decent amount of coverage from local news outlets [30], [31], [32] plus this article in Forbes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, per additional sources listed by Ohnoitsjamie above. FWIW, the government-funded Voice of America is no less reliable a source than the government-funded BBC. Miniapolis 22:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece says it's written by a "subscriber". Weird. CorporateM (Talk) 01:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Forbes.com_blogs and [33]. Forbes blogs don't have editorial oversight and are of questionable use for establishing notability. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with a recommendation that experienced editors monitor the article actively. I disagree with the notion that Voice of America is somehow an inherently unreliable source. No source is 100% reliable all the time, and even Weekly World News can be trusted for the name of its managing editor and the address of its editorial offices. The notion that significant coverage in VoA contributes nothing to notability is just plain wrong. This is not VoA discussing Iranian or Cuban politics in the 1950s. Even so, the other sources in the article are sufficient for notability, in my opinion. This hog farm is notable primarily for its innovative practices regarding boar taint and also feeding with acid whey. Keeping the article is not an endorsement of their practices but rather an acknowledgement that reliable sources discuss them in detail in this context. The coverage cited in the article rises above routine reprint of press releases to significant, independent coverage. The fact that the farm owner may have sent out press releases and blogged a lot is irrelevant. The editorial staffs of reliable sources get at least 100 times more press releases than the number of articles they can publish. 99% go to the electronic circular file. When reliable sources are motivated by a press release to do independent reporting accompanied by fact checking, that is both a normal thing and a good thing. It is evidence of professional editorial judgment. During this process, two editors have been identified as having strong COIs, one "pro" and one "con". Both should be expected to refrain from editing, and confine themselves to proposing edits on the talk page in the form: "Please change content X to such and such, based on what specific reliable source Y (linked) says about the topic." I will support lengthy blocks of any COI accounts editing this article disruptively, either by these two accounts, or any other COI accounts that may emerge in the future. The article will remain on my watch list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In addition to the sources cited above by Ohnoitsjamie, I quickly see THIS from the Burlington Free Press, an article about the farm. I personally think the encyclopedic approach would be a nice article on pasture-raised pigs, giving the semi-promotional buzz here a miss, but we're not here to talk about what is optimal... We are here only to judge whether this topic meets GNG as the object of substantial coverage in multiple, independently-published sources of presumed reliability. This topic does. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Lots of coverage, albeit all a bit lacking in substance. Still think it just about passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you strike your delete position above if your position is now a Keep. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was initially on the fence, but I think that the sources given by Ohnoitsjamie and Carrite are sufficient to meet WP:CORP (excluding Forbes and mainly due to the Burlington Free Press one). COI is a non-issue at AFD and CorporateM has already done a great job at tidying it up to make it more compliant with policy. Now that there are plenty more eyes on it, it won't degenerate back to how it was. SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly sufficient RS to meet GNG, including the Acres USA article from a publisher that claims: Acres U.S.A. is the only national magazine that offers a comprehensive guide to sustainable agriculture. Drawing on knowledge accumulated in more than 40 years of continuous publication, we bring our readers the latest techniques for growing bountiful, nutritious crops and healthy, vibrant livestock. A glance at any issue is enough to see why sustainable farming — we call it “eco-agriculture” because it's both ecological and economical — represents the real revolution in scientific food cultivation. [34]. If that's not an RS, then we have issues. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only trouble I have with Acres U.S.A is that it publishes articles submitted by the general public; while it may copyedit reader submissions, there is no editorial oversight in the sense of journalistic norms. It ends up that those reader submitted articles have no more reliability than blogs. That being said, I am finding there may be validity in keeping the article, and may change my vote. Scr★pIron^IV 14:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only trouble I have with Acres U.S.A is that it publishes articles submitted by the general public; while it may copyedit reader submissions, there is no editorial oversight in the sense of journalistic norms. A lot of reputable magazines that meet our RS guidelines have articles submitted by the "General Public". Most contribution guidelines don't specify: "General Public don't bother". Having been published in a number of magazines on a variety of subjects, I consider myself the "General Public" when I am submitting articles. Actually, you made "General Public" up, because Acres U.S.A's contribution guidelines don't say general public at all, they say: Acres U.S.A. is a magazine written by passionate people who have a sincere interest in the principles of sustainable and organic agriculture. Most of what we print comes from people who have learned their lessons the hard way — with hands-on experience, trial and error, and a willingness to seek out the information they need to get results. Our writers are the farmers, ranchers, consultants and researchers busy innovating in the field, as well as insightful freelancers who recognize innovation, know the right questions to ask, and can clearly and accurately tell the story. [35]. Hardly sounds like the General Public or one-off blog, especially since they've been doing it for 40 years. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not a neutral journal; they advocate a particular style of farming and uncritically publish anything that promotes their viewpoint. this particular article was written by another farmer who also advocates that style of farming. So you've got a biased source talking to another biased source published by a biased press and no one in this chain will check any claim made. Bruceki (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want familiarize yourself with WP:BIASED which is very explicit about not disqualifying RS on anyone's perception of neutrality. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Acres article cited in this article cites: North Carolina State Proceedings of North Carolina Healthy Hogs Seminar (1995) and Equinews-of Kentucky Equine Research. These hardly seem like biased sources relative to this article.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the acres article referred to here had a publication date pretty recently - Feb or March of 2015. Any reference in 1995 predates the existence of this farm as a pig operation by the owners admission in the talk page for the article which could either be 2003 when he claims to have purchased his first pigs, or 2007 when he claims that he incorporated. Pulling the dates out of memory; statements on talk page. Bruceki (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Cline: The biased source entry you cite specifically states that the normal standards for reliable sources apply, and that fact and source checking should have been done by the publication. I'm explicitly concerned that this particular source doesn't check claims but reports them uncritically. Bruceki (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, please provide "PROOF" of your opinion, because your opinion ...... --Mike Cline (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the burden of proof directed the other way? the source has to be proven reliable, not proven unreliable. How do you propose that I prove a negative? Bruceki (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, an editor with a clear COI related the the article opposes the inclusion of a source with which they fundamentally disagree as un-reliable because they don't check facts and are clearly biased against the editor's view of the world--YOU. On the other hand the source has been in sustained publication for 40 years and on the articles in the source that I've reviewed, there has been routine attribution of facts to academic sources. I cannot in all good faith say that ACRES USA exercises editorial review consistent with WP expectations. However, 40 years of sustained publication does speak to some credibility. Given the 40 years of sustained publication, one would think that if they were indeed un-reliable by WP standards, there would be some substantive evidence to that end. The mere opinion of an editor with a clear COI on the subject isn't the kind of evidence that will convince many that the source is un-reliable by WP standards. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read this article. I don't have a position on it - I don't agree, or disagree with it. My concern is that the source doesn't have a clear history of fact checking. If there are academic cites present in that publication about this particular subject, bring 'em on. As an aside, I actually do run a farm that pretty much conforms to what that magazine appears to promote. And I resemble the "hands on, learn by experience" folks that they claim write articles. I talk about / edit what I know. Bruceki (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Sugar mountain farms has been active in promoting a particular style of animal husbandry and while their viewpoint is controversial and their results are unsupported, that controversy works well to promote their agenda. Note that on the COI page and in various comments I'm considered a "strong negative COI" related to SMF. Bruceki (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The James Franco Challenge

The James Franco Challenge (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)

At best, a non-notable game, at worst entirely made up. In any case, should be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to have been made up by article creator. No hint of reliable source coverage I could find on Google that would indicate notability. Everymorning talk 15:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at the very least because I can find no evidence of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. not to pile on but it's a pretty easy call. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pretty much as obvious as it gets. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 03:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a game come up with while partaking of one of Mr. Franco's favorite activities. Nate • (chatter) 07:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Entirely nonsense with multiple searches not finding one single relevant result. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (WP:SNOW) - possible it could qualify for WP:MADEUP too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cleary not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above cealrly not notable and could not find even one single relevant source.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 05:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines Flight 1878

Turkish Airlines Flight 1878 (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)

Nominated on behalf of IP 1.136.96.194, who requested it at Help desk (but I do not necessarily support deletion.) IP's argument seems to be: Wikipedia is not a news summary service; this is without doubt a news story; but with no deaths, injuries, or total hull loss and no reliable source predicting changes to procedures or regulations as a result of the accident it fails WP:AIRCRASH the projects own guidelines for an article RJFJR (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy. It is too soon to tell if there will be a hull loss or whether or not any procedures / regulations will change. The aircraft is probably a write-off, but a lack of a write off or injuries and deaths does not necessarily mean that the event is non-notable - q.v. British Airways Flight 9, China Airlines Flight 006 and Qantas Flight 32, all of which did not result in a hull loss. That the aircraft was substantially damaged, and flew in such a condition for 20 minutes, couple with the damage sustained pushes the accident sufficiently up the notability scale that we can justify an article on Wikipedia. This view has already been expressed at WikiProject level. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:AIRCRASH does not apply, it is to determine the inclusion of accidents in aircraft type articles, not stand-alone accident articles. It says, "By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not." This makes WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - NOTAIRCRASH is an essay & all that, Passes GNG, No reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Transasia07 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because it wasn't a hull loss, doesn't mean it's not notable. Is this the same person who [miserably] attempted to delete Asiana Airlines Flight 162?Iloveplanes2003 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, just like Flight 162, this article meets 2 of the 3 guidelines in the criteria for Wikipedia articles on aircraft accidents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents) when it needs to meet only 1. The aircraft suffered severe damage on the first botched landing almost tearing the wing apart and it skidded off the runway on the second attempt.A340swazzen (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As others have stated, WP:AIRCRASH refers to other pages referencing the crash, not to the page on the crash itself. This incident was severe and resulted in considerable damage; making it notable. There is no reason to delete it.BinarySquareRoot (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esteru

Esteru (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 was deleted in Spanish Wikipedia per the following reason: “Hoax that have been "popularized" thanks to Wikipedia. Article currently without reliable sources”.

Quoting the arguments from Spanish Wikipedia (rough translation is mine):

Mythological inventions, fraud and hoaxes

Since 2007 this article has remained (in Spanish Wikipedia) fraught with suppositions and conjectures without reference support, despite the ederly references request template from 2009...

Esteru is not a traditional character

Any evidence of this character that we can find on the Internet, doesn't go back beyond the summer of 2006. Since then, it seems to have gained some popularity (very limited, as we shall see). But however popular it this character today (actually very unpopular), is all abusive and inappropriate call "traditional" a habit of just over 7 years old. Tradition is what happens from generation to generation, and seven years is neither a quarter of a generation. No mention that remotely can refer to the previous Esteru to 2006, from news, forums, books, articles, thesis, or anything. None. And no one explained with a minimum rigor of where or when the alleged proceeds tradition. None.

Esteru has a rather low popularity

It turns out that among the just over 200 mentions Esteru found in Google (at the time of AfD), fifty are a copy of the text that appears in the [Spanish] Wikipedia article; 40 mentions in forums or blogs, none of them specialized in mythology and folklore; 12 are mere mentions in pages dedicated to the sale of gift items; 30 others are merely mentions that barely exceed the 25 words on web pages varied in nature, none of them specialized in the matter; all other references are anonymous comments made in those forums, opinion and personal pages, and so on. Only 7 times appears in Esteru in the pages of daily news (digital or paper): 4 to repeat that a man disguised as Esteru went to visit template Racing, and 3 to echo the claim of one basque association to popularize the Olentzer-Esteru at Castro. It is very striking that an alleged "traditional Christmas character" appears only 7 times in the press over the last seven years, and how it does.

There are no reliable sources, and there is a very founded suspicion of promotion[al issue]

As I said above, there isn't a single reliable source that supports this character belongs to the Cantabrian mythology, or that it is a traditional character. No one (other than Wikipedia itself) provides details or anything that remotely can be likened to a study or reflection of the origin and development of Esteru. No book or print publication that deals with this character appears. In no date.
In the article a 2010 article in a not specialized magazine in Catalan is mentioned, written by an unskilled journalist, and is dedicated to Santa Claus; but in its "online" article is not mentioned even once this Esteru. Santa Claus, Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas [or whateveras we call it], is in fact mentioned... but Esteru not...

And here comes the best:

All mentions of Esteru over the Internet are subsequent to the publication of the article in [Spanish] Wikipedia in 2007... all of them but two or three, corresponding to a Cantabrian-nationalist-like forum, in which an user called Kerwan (in fact, the same username that creates the article in [Spanish] Wikipedia and illustrated it with own photos) said someone told him a story that others have told them. [36] (in Spanish)

In another forum of equal orientation, or even more radical, another "Kerwan" says "One of the first to reveal the Esteru story have been me", but this time said to another who says that some have told one thing. Later, Kerwan acknowledges that he hasn't evidence of the mythical existence of such Esteru "other than oral" (which says that some have been told him). Here this Kerwan also expressed that picture Esteru_carroza.jpg, published in the Wikipedia article representing a guy in costume, apparently made in 2005, is the Esteru, and "believed to be a cavalcade of 2006 or 2007", which someone sent to him in 2007...

In that forum also are involved people who say that the "introduction" of Esteru is an "investment for the future". And other participants demonstrate that the story of Esteru is literally copied from a previous story of the Basque Olentzero. [37] (in Spanish)

In the "prau conceju" forum, Kerwan also presents supposed programs and reviews of the celebration of Reyes en Comillas, [38] (in Spanish). But it seems the program and review are the work of the Kerwan himself. The truth is that in none of the programs of the municipality, or any of the photos of the riding of Kings in Comillas available on Google, this character appears (except the pictures provided by the same Kerwan, both could be the Esteru as any disguise).

Apparently, it would seem that the above mentioned Kerwan is (pun intended) an active Cantabrian radical nationalism activist, also related to associations or groups involved in activities sponsored by the city council of Comillas. And the more it seems that all this history is Esteru product of a particular desire of Cantabrian identity, based more on desire than reality.

Because the above statements I consider and propose to wikipedians to delete this article. Zerabat (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's. The discussion in the Spanish Wikipedia has clearly stated that the article is a hoax and that wikipedia was used to spread it. --Discasto (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- As this is a Spanish subject, we should apply the Spanish conclusion that it is a hoax. Worryingly, there are several other language versions but I hope these will also get deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX as a non-notable hoax. Esquivalience ^t 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InsureMyTrip.com

InsureMyTrip.com (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 company, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete references are primarily promotional. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm the paid editor who created this article. I believe that InsureMyTrip.com is notable because the company created the first travel insurance aggregator website. This is a big deal as IMT gave people the opportunity to compare travel insurance plans and then leave reviews about them. Much of the information about this has been deleted from the article. I propose that the deleted section be re-inserted, discussion take place about the article on the Talk page, and then the article be revised. I did extensive research about the travel insurance industry and as a result, was planning on updating the Travel_insurance article, which has multiple issues. Djhuff (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - per nom. -KH-1 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Djhuff and his plan to improve the article, The fact that the company created the first travel insurance aggregator website makes the company notable. WP:N The fact that the creator of the article has now declared himself as a paid editor should not even be germane to this discussion. Again, let us have no prejudices against the article itself because of who happened to create it. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No-one has commented on paid ediotr status, other than the user themselves. It's not really relevant. Also, why is all your text in bold- assume it was a syntax mistake? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There is nothing in the article saying it is the first aggregator. Brianhe (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone removed it once I declared my "paid editor" status. It is the first travel insurance aggregator website. Djhuff (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Yes just didn't get the quote marks on correctly. Thanks for adjusting that. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to fail WP:CORP, and article is WP:PROMO. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Transparent WP:ADMASQ by a confessed paid editor. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James N. Grace. Pax 10:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's a nice little sourced article but it is not notable, News gave several results (with some press releases) but they're all part of travel tips and such are in passing and Books provided nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SwisterTwister and Joseph2302 . Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plutora

Plutora (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)

Blatant self-promotion of a non-notable startup company. A single technical Gartner-review on innovative (aka "interesting future concept") companies is not significant coverage. The only other source [39] mentions the company in passing: "an early-stage Australian company with offices in San Francisco. Like ServiceNow, Plutora uses the SaaS delivery model. Though it has raised just a small seed round so far, it's quietly winning fans and gaining buzz in the devops world". That's the dictionary definition for a possibly promising, but currently non-notable startup. Other Google hits are announcements and self-published or -distributed press releases. GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing useful and simply a plethora (or maybe a pluthora, pun intended) of press releases. The company is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply not notable. Not much to add besides that. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All I found in the web is self promotion of the company. Wishing them good luck to be worthy of Wikipedia article in some years, but now it's not notable company Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurantware

Restaurantware (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 company. Very little independent coverage, and most of it is from other organisations in the industry. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Source searches are not providing independent significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of primary source press releases out there, but does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After doing some serious editing, I am persuaded that this company is Notable. You can't buy editorial space in Inc., and HuffPo has seen fit to give some column space to the firm's co-founder. Kitchn is a product of the http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/team. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Huffington Post does have many non-paid contributors and bloggersAusLondonder (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - whilst the company has received some mentions in sources, the sources are not specifically about this company. It does not seem to pass the test as notable. AusLondonder (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this belongs on the Korean language Wikipedia. Can be restored for transwiki purposes on request.  Sandstein  15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Culinary Institute of America (Korean translation)

The Culinary Institute of America (Korean translation) (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 translate Vvvaggot (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Korean Wikipedia No harm in losing this text at all, but it doesn't really have a place on en.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 14:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who added the page, I just want to share why I did so. I am an administrator at The Culinary Institute of America, and we have a rather large constituency of Korean students and people interested in culinary education. I had received some feedback from some members of this constituency that the Wikipedia translation service was not always reliable/usable for them, so this was done as a courtesy. The translation is word-for-word the information that already exists on The Culinary Institute of America main page. Jnormy (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Korean Wikipedia: meets ko:백:저 (Korean Wikipedia's notability guideline, pretty much the same as WP:GNG), however this is not the Korean Wikipedia. Esquivalience ^t 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki If there is someone who can confirm that it is a reasonably accurate translation. This article defeats the purpose of having other-language wikis and the "Other languages" space on the left side of the page. Currently, the link to this article in the last line of the lead of The Culinary Institute of America has a promotional feel to it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prathik Jain

Prathik Jain (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:BIO as there is no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Brief mentions in RSs and setting world records is not sufficient to confer notability. SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough in-depth WP:RS coverage; setting a few obscure "records" doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG only brief mentions .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be currently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoorMint

DoorMint (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 company. Just another app to hire services. Coverage available all appears to be merely announcements that the company has obtained venture funding or of the advertorial variety. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as too soon - A News search found a few links but nothing outstanding, Books of course gave nothing and a browser search simply provided some of the same links in this article. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishal Biswas

Bishal Biswas (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)

Biography of a bright young man who, however, does not appear to be notable for more than one event (and it is doubtful whether that is in fact a "notable event"). The article has previously been speedied as A7 but there does seem to be an assertion of importance there now, which is why I took it to AfD instead. bonadea contributions talk 10:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. Perhaps someone with access to non-English publications can find some additional sources.- MrX 12:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, not sure why, but truly if you've achieved such recognition like being Honoured by The President of India, getting on Times of India, Dainik Bhaskhar, and many other newspapers. Including interviews in eTV as well as AIR, and being certified by Google, HP. If you think its not an achievement for a 15 years old boy, you may prefer deleting it. Just have a look at his Photos he uploaded in past with all the proofs: https://www.facebook.com/Bishal786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitin291 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His meeting with the President is mentioned in the article, and the Times of India reference is there. As mentioned above, that is not enough to show notability according to Wikipedia's definition. If there are other sources that have in-depth coverage of this person (and not only of his meeting with the President), please add them to the article. His being certified by Google and HP are not claims to notability, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 21:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BLP1E .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]