Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 February	18 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Blaster Roar

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

This article is about a portable Bluetooth speaker made by Creative Technology. There is no claim to notability, none of the references, either in the article, nor that I can independently find, support any notability.

Article was created by WP:SPA editor Dinopkk (talk · contribs), whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to the article Creative Technology and articles on its products. I suspect a WP:COI and have warned the editor.

I PRODded the article with the concern "Just another speaker; no claim to notability." It was dePRODded (as a "minor edit"!) with no explanation by the creating editor an hour later. Another editor HaeB (talk · contribs) tagged it for notability. Again, the creating editor removed the tag as a minor edit without explanation.

It seems to me to be just another computer speaker. Probably a pretty good one, but not notable, and the article appears to be part of a promotional campaign for Creative Technology using Wikipedia.

~~Note, I plan to AFD Sound BlasterAxx for similar reasons.~~ See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound BlasterAxx, just opened. TJRC (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:PRODUCT. Redirect both to Creative_Technology#Other_products. Please bundle the other AfD into this one rather than making two separates. Pax 00:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfDs is the appropriate way to handle it. Multiple-article AfDs are rarely helpful.

The link you provide is advice on what to do when a product is not notable, not a guide to determine if a product is notable. Please provide an actual rationale as to why you feel this product is not-notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in comment below. Pax 20:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - tons and tons of professional reviews and other reliable source coverage exist, meeting the GNG by a mile. Spending two seconds on Google news will establish that: [1]. A COI (even if proven) is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is there anythign wrong with the article creator removing a PROD tag. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I gonna go with ThaddeusB on this. For example: this review from PC Magazine, this review from TechRadar, and this review from Paste. There are more available on a Google search. I'm sensitive to spam, COI editing, and such, but this is a legitimate topic. If necessary, we can rewrite it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the keep votes so far reference reviews, but WP:Routine reviews do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Pax 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, product reviews are exactly how you establish notability of a product. Routine coverage includes product announcements, but professional reviews are not in any way routine. The vast majority of products never received one, for example. If you are going to quote a guideline, at least bother to read it - neither link you gave lists product reviews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, where does it specifically say that about reviews in the notability rules? If a restaurant can't be notable from a review per WP:Corpdepth, how does one of its dishes (i.e., their product) become notable via a review? (It sounds to me like the wording of Corpdepth should be changed, as right now an apparent contradiction exists). Pax 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant rule is silly (and probably does not reflect actual consensus), but regardless this isn't a restaurant. If the rule was meant to apply to all reviews, is wouldn't specify restaurants specifically. If a type of coverage isn't excluded, then obviously it qualifies as valid under the general notability guidelines --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at cloned AfD; I recommend the closer deal with them as if they were a bundled AfD Pax 20:42, 22 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Adam

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

The first AfD was a dud. I'm not surprised no one cares about a random Moldovan woodcarver, but who knows, maybe we'll get a couple of votes and achieve consensus this time around. My reasons for deletion have previously been outlined, and I don't have anything in particular to add. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs improvement, but local RS exists (although finding them from an English-speaking vantage-point is a tedious hunt through Google-translate), even international interest. Given subject's long (30 years) and talented career, I recommend !voters be mindful of geographical/language bias. Pax 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've pointed out before, and I will point out again: that article is by Andrian Adam, probably a relative of Vasile Adam and definitely the author of this article. Also, he was a mere intern when he wrote the article, which, additionally, is not quite neutral. Even if you consider none of this matters, WP:BASIC does require multiple published secondary sources — i.e., more than one.
- As for this: it's not quotable. The fact that a foreign arts portal features a couple of Adam's works is nice, but there's no way of working that into an article, and therefore it's rather irrelevant.
- So, yes, systemic bias, but just because a subject comes from a country that falls on the wrong side of the systemic bias divide does not mean he's exempted from relevant policies – in this case, WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. I look forward to more concrete evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above, article needs improvement but the subject seems to meet notability requirements. I suggest adding more references to the article even if they are foreign-language references.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SouthernNights, those references would be in Romanian, a language I know; I've searched in Romanian, exhaustively, and the only remotely quotable source is the Timpul article, which, as I've thoroughly explained above, represents a classic conflict of interest. It's a puff piece written by one Andrian Adam, very likely a relative and an intern at the paper, who then (under the user name Andrian Adam) wrote this article and used his published article as the main reference. Doesn't that seem just a bit, well, irregular? And as I've also noted, WP:BASIC requires "multiple published secondary sources.... independent of the subject". Even if the Timpul article were "independent of the subject" (it's not), it's the only quotable source. The "multiple sources" part isn't fulfilled, and can't be, as far as I can tell. The article cannot undergo "improvement" because "more references" do not exist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my oppinion WP:GNG is met: [This article] and [this article] are both WP:RS both treat the subject in depth and both should be considered independent of the subject, since they are both reliable sources and have editorial control. When in doubt the balance should tip to the keep.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:14, 22 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New atheism and Islamophobia

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

Article was prodded for deletion as a non-encyclopedic essay, but the prod was removed by the article creator. I think the original reason for deletion stands. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, There are many comparison of religious positions on wikipedia. This happens to be a much talked about component of the relationship between Islam and atheism. Round here yeah (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing nothing in this article that would not fit into New Atheism. Why does this topic deserve a dedicated article? (By the way, if you want the article to be kept, your vote should read "keep", rather than "oppose"; I assume the admin who closes the debate will read it as keep, but its still better to use the accepted terminology). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Transparent WP:COATRACK. Not seeing a real rationale for a redirect given unlikelihood of this exact phrase ever being used as a search term. Pax 01:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other articles of this type exist, for example: Christianity and antisemitism. However, those articles have lots of instances of attacks on one religion by members of another, where a this article is just synthesising a theory out of a few accusatory articles in the media. Liam987 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In theory, an article could be created, but this synthesis is not it. I'm not sure if it's so bad as to be deleted or just userfied or redirected for more work. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of sources for the article, there is no danger of SYNTH taking place. The topic is covered by reliable third party sources. Searches showed the following results for New Atheism and Islamophobia:

News with 4500 results[2]
Books with 627 results[3]
G.scholar with 2350 results[4]

Note added later; this is just one article from the independent[5] which directly speaks about new atheism and islamophobia in detail. There is significant coverage of this topic in secondary sources who are independent of the subject. The article meets the general notability guidelines so is WP:GNG compliant.

18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Mbcap (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, collection of different sources, some of lesser quality, inappropriately making broader claims (such as opinion texts discussing Sam Harris linked to whole "New atheism". The best sources could be used, and are used, in New atheism's criticism section. There's simply not enough for a whole article. --Pudeo ' 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with this article is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK based on a couple of opinion articles. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:04, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitbusters

(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)

Non notable albums. Fail both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to nominate this one myself. Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just because it includes popular songs not created by the creator of the album doesn't necessarily mean it meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Searching "hitbusters" on Google's news search engine comes up with an unrelated result. Esquivalience ^t 02:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability indicated. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Attack. Various Artists

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

Non-notable album. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zero notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Unofficial Guides to Medicine

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

Well sourced, this reads as an essay and an advocation rather then an encyclopedia article. Casically a part of What wiki is not and will take a fundamental rewrite and a scrutiny of sources. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Pax 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Eiron (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement masquerading as an article. BakerStMD T|C 14:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:ARTSPAM. How considerate of the article, it even gives us two links in the references section to the amazon pages from where we can buy the book from. Mbcap (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation as a proper article - there is some possibility of notability (several of the books have been reviewed in academic journals), but there isn't really much usable text here - it is mostly an essay on why someone should read (or buy) the books. Better to start over I think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mr. Guye: who accepted this at AfC in case he wants to clean it up & save it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate again Yikes. This is bad. I suppose I did not look through it as much as I should have. Perhaps I was thrown off by something. Still, as ThaddeusB has said, it may be notable. Let's send it back to draftspace so it can be fixed up, especially by ZeshanQureshi, who has yet to comment here. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no objection to returning it to draft space if there is a willingness to work on it (which per below, does seem to be the case). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the helpful feedback, and take all of the comments very seriously. I appreciate your patience, and as it sounds like you have deduced, my background is academic writing (as a doctor), rather than encyclopedia entry, and its seems as though i have fallen into the trap of doing things in a way i am used to. I have already added significantly to the article based on feedback. I have tried to make it more balanced, and have included more criticism about the publishing group. I have set aside time every day this week to work on it further however necessary, as i believe that wikipedia's strength comes from its strict standards. Cant emphasise again how great it is to have so much feedback to take on, and look forward to further comments. ZeshanQureshi

And thank you for being civil and assuming good faith. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have seldom seen a statement like that at an AFD. Kudos. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much piling on. This article is a pretty blatant advertisement. I must concur with those above this article should be deleted per WP:ADMASQ. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:02, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way of Infinite Harmony

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

This is a topic with no significant coverage and notability as established by independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Cold Season (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magu (deity); existing name is WP:ADMASQy reference to book title for sale on Amazon; that exact phrase does not appear notable otherwise. Pax 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the term seems to be only used in a non-notable recent book. -Zanhe (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 February 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 666bet. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metroplay

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

Company is not notable, a subsidiary of a larger company with no significant press. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 666bet, as this title is now merely a brand-front. (Then again, that article appears to share the same notability problems, and tossing both could be in store.) Pax 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 666bet - the coverage I found all seems to cover this company in the context of its sale to 666bet. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hill (record producer)

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

Notability questionable. Almost all links are promotional, as discussed on WP:COIN. Per WP:MUSIC, not notable. If he'd actually won a GRAMMY, instead of just being nominated... (rationale borrowed from the earlier PROD nomination by Nagle; PROD was removed by one of the COI IPs) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability questionable as per above, and also nothing substantive in the article beyond a list of records produced 79616gr (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read Binksternet's references he does seem to qualify per Wikipedia:Notability (music). 79616gr (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No major awards, no major articles, just a long list of products with which he had some association. John Nagle (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guy is notable even though his agency, the author of this biography, failed to prove it. Per Wikipedia:Notability (music), Hill's biography should be kept because he has been a key part of several hit singles including "Can't Remember to Forget You" and "She Wolf", both of which he co-wrote.[6][7] Below are some references that can be used to expand the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Diehl, Matt (April 4, 2013). "Gear: John Hill's Playground of Sound". Billboard.
- Hoffman, Ken (February 9, 2015). "Houston producer scales Grammy hill". Houston Chronicle.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One WP:MUSICBIO criteria: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." There is little reason not to extend this rationale to record producers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that he has been nominated for a Gramy satisfies criterion #8 of WP:MUSICBIO. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 February 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 The Blood Divine. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Maloney

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

Longtime unsourced BLP with very little info and looks unotable even. Wgolf (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: provided subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, recommend Redirect to The Blood Divine per WP:CHEAP. Pax 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Blood Divine as the artist is not notable enough to have an article of his own but is notable enough to have a redirect. Lack of any reliable sources (or even a website of his own, mind you) makes it hard to meet WP:GNG. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:56, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vizhiyil

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

unotable music album-with its only ref being on facebook Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable album, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alin Popa

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

There's absolutely no indication this individual meets the notability guidelines specified at WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. What we have for "sources" is:

An interview hosted by a PR agency
Bare passing mention (as in, part of a cast list) in two newspaper articles
Another cast list, this time hosted by a theatre that employed the subject
A blog post
A LinkedIn profile
Directory entries: 1, 2, 3, 4

In other words, no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject exists, and we should delete accordingly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real assertion of notability; his biggest role was Tybalt in a regional stage production of Romeo and Juliet. We are not LinkedIn for actors. This falls way far short of WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 February 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 clear policy backed consensus is for this article to be deleted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring Uttam Kumar

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

List of songs featuring someone??? Really? This is going a bit too far Wgolf (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's misnamed at the very least. From the title (and having no idea who Kumar is), I assumed it would be pop songs in which he was credited as a "featured" recording artist (like "Love the Way You Lie" is credited to "Eminem (feat. Rihanna)"). Instead, it's a list of songs Kumar performed in movies in which he acted. I'm not sure that's similar enough to the other contents of Category:Lists of songs by recording artists. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from this discussion so far, it's a strong delete for me. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It really is going too far. It doesn't make sense and falls in the line of What Wikipedia is NOT. He is not a "recording artist" but an actor. In Bollywood and each and every other Indian cinema, we have on average 4-5 songs featuring actor and actress for the sake of entertainment. If they are notable for acting in a song or multiple songs in movies, it should go under Career section of their biographical article. The list is relevant for a "recording artist", for an actor, we have "Actor Filmography", what in present case we already have at Uttam Kumar filmography. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep This! This is helpful - I know that it seems quite queer to have a list of songs not sung by any singer, rather performed by an actor. But I don't think it's 100% irrelevant. Because I'm an Indian. Normally, any song's credit directly goes to its composer or singer, but in India there is three such legendary actors (Amitabh Bachchan, Uttam Kumar and Rajnikant) whose songs are mainly attributed to its actors. People often say, its Uttam Kumar's song or its Amitabh Bachchan's song. So, its very reasonable to include songs featuring these actors. Moreover, very few actors have performed 300+ songs like kumar. Besides this, the writer of this article has introduced a new thing to us, a list of songs not sung, rather featuring an actor. It's outstanding, unique and versatile! and the reference really corresponds to the films with detailed track listing as the article has. Mayank Kapadia (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC) User[reply]
- "...a list of songs not sung, rather featuring an actor." I have no idea what that means. He didn't even sing these songs? Was he merely onscreen when they are performed in these movies? postdlf (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: -Yes, it is merely an onscreen performance by an actor in songs featured in the films they acted into. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayank Kapadia: -Do you have any source that discuss these songs featuring the actor? An actor acts and acting is what relevant to their profession. Similarly, a singer sings, and songs are relevant to their profession. A list of songs featuring a particular actor doesn't make sense. One formal question, are you aware of Wikipedia's notability guideline? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:45, 19 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noa Bursie

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

Delete: questionable notability per WP:MUSICIAN. Quis separabit? 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - news searches found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I am willing to change my mind if better sources are located. Sorry she died so young, but I follow blues and folk music in Upstate NY (where I lived for 33 years), and have never heard of her. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 19 February 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 Deleted - G5 by TexasAndroid NAC –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad Ki Raaten

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

Unotable film made by a sockpuppet as well. Wgolf (talk) 17:21, 17 February 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 Deleted - G5 by TexasAndroid NAC –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lima (actress)

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

Article about a unotable film actress made by a person who was also previously banned (I have put a csd banned on a few of his articles and a normal prod also) Wgolf (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (creation by a sock of blocked user Sadman Sakibzz: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadman Sakibzz). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah have done a bunch of csds just now-also I just put a csd for , just look at the number of pages to go through for that even! Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leonardo

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [8] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: There is discussion related to a batch of AFDs, I think all about model articles created by one editor, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 31#Madison Guthrie. Related renom AFDs (all for articles started by one editor) are:

Somewhat related, new AFDs (but these are for model articles started by different editors) are:

--do ncr am 22:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. NBA.com is hardly anybody's "local paper" and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in May 2012 through the AfC process by User:RRRRRYYYYYAAAAANNNNN who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per request(s), and to avoid confusion, nominator has stopped. The 12 AFDs linked above now are all of them. Each needs to be considered separately. --do ncr am 22:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How any dancers for the Boston Celtics warrant their own WP article, even if listed on the NBA website? Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo won the Miss New Jersey Teen USA crown in 2008 and Miss New Jersey USA in 2012, both of which are notable statewide pageants with national and international coverage in reliable third-party sources. She's no more simply a Celtics dancer than Paula Abdul is simply a former Lakers dancer. - Dravecky (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show us the WP policy that winning a state pageant is notable. Winning a blue ribbon or a tractor pull at the state fair is just as notable. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside ~~Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests,~~ No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this one is different than the others, is NOT created by the one editor whose articles were nominated at AFD in a large group (of which 8 are renominated in links above). This one was created through AFC process, accepted in this version by editor Missvain. No more model AFDs being started by nominator now. This article topic needs to be evaluated on its merits alone. --do ncr am 22:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why the hell this crap was accepted I'll never know,~~ Anyway I've struck as turns out you're right it appears to have been created by someone not affliated with the contest –Davey2010^Talk 02:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Though created through AFD, it's not notable. EChastain (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.
Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are either primary and promotional pageant websites, blogsites, casual mentions (such as the Celtics' bulletpoint bio) and one school newspaper. A Highbeam search turns up her only mention in a reliable news source, as part of a photo caption in an AP newswire photo along with several dozen other pageant contestants. Nowhere in Wikipedia notability guidelines is there any presumptive notability for state pageant winners, and so the article has to stand and fall on the GNG, which the subject doesn't meet. Ravenswing 03:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources such as [9], [10], and [11] are reliable and sufficient to establish (minor) notability. Sufficient other sources (official bios) exist to round out the article (they don't establish notability, but can be used to flesh out non-controversial info). BLP1E clearly does not apply (there are multiple events here) - throwing it out as a delete reason only weakens a delete argument. Pinging @Missvain: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has numerous references to third party reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG as well, the subject has shown notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient references as per WP:RS, not just a beauty contestant but a dancer and she's been in commercials, but much of the unsourced cruft was removed and should not be re-inserted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. This travesty needs to be re-written from scratch. Pax 21:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rewritten from scratch or do you think it needs another rewrite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem sufficient. Artw (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple citations in reliable, third-party sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 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. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Past: A Compilation

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

PROD removed because "compilation albums are routinely listed on WP". I can't find the policy WP:ROUTINELYLISTED but I can find WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:V and WP:RS (both absent from this article) and no actual policy that mandates including every album ever released by anybody who makes the inclusion threshold, however narrowly. The sole source here is editable by artists and their PR, it is not a source that provides evidence of significance, only one where absence is strong evidence of the opposite. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point number 2 in WP:NALBUM says, "2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." Thus, Lord of the Past: A Compilation qualifies to be kept; as the references in the article note. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that sources exist to meet WP:NALBUMS. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources other than trivial mentions. Fails WP:NALBUM.- Mr X 03:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added two more references to the article in support of prominence. Note, I do not understand the original argument posed that WP is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" when this is part of a prominent musical artist's catalog of work. Just because one release in an artist's career is not as prominently lauded as another does not seem to me to be a reason to erase that part of the artist's career from WP. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See additional comment in the introductory paragraph. Christopher Rath (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~Not enough coverage to meet requirements of WP:NALBUM to establish its own notability. The artists notability does not pass to the album per WP:NOTINHERITED. JBH (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)~~ Making a national chart passes WP:NALBUM. JBH (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to consider recent article changes/references additions by Crath. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia Anghelescu

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

We need some sort of references establishing this individual's notability, as defined by WP:NMUSIC, and no, an article announcing that she's delivered a baby girl doesn't help in that regard. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mister Biruitorul, can you read English? Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles and read carefully! This singer passes at least 4 of these criteria. Your userpage tells that you're native speaker of Romanian. I doubt. Because in this case you could read just some pages of those 125.000 web pages available on internet in which Giulia is mentioned to find her notability. I noticed you are obsessed with deletion of Romania-related articles. Better propose right now deletion of articles Bucharest and Romania and don't play with small preys. I suggest you to check New Pages Feed where you can see hundreds and thousands of stuby articles abouts non-notable musical albums, some 'anonymous' artists, unknown authors, various non-notable sport clubs and teams. This article, is not a real candidate for deletion, it's candidate for improvement. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of any biography has to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Verbiage aside, please adduce some specific examples of significant coverage if you want the article kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless this article is a hoax, there is no way this person is not well-known in Romania, with language barriers (and potential mispellings) presenting the primary sourcing difficulty. Pax 06:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so she's notable because a Wikipedia editor who has no idea about WP:CS, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and so forth made unverifiable claims about her. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, and I suggest you review the relevant policies more clearly before casting such irresponsible votes. We need sources backing up assertions of notability, and we currently have none. If sources attesting notability emerge, great. If not, we are under no obligation to lend credence to the article text. (WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.".) In fact, per WP:BLP, we should be especially wary of doing so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: failed WP:BEFORE, clearly a celebrity, she regularly receives tons of coverage in Romanian newspapers, magazines and other news sources: eg, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], there are dozens of pages about her on Google News. And I just checked for "Giulia Anghelescu", not for "Giulia" which is her stage name. She appears to be some sort of local Rihanna and she apparently receives news coverage on daily basis, I can't see how a Romanian-born editor could fail to see that in their WP:BEFORE. Article is in bad shape, but AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 07:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's take a closer look at these sources you've brought in.
This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this is blatant tabloid trash. We're an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag, and as a matter of course, we simply don't cite publications of that sort. Besides, the content of the linked articles is largely (if not entirely) trivial and unquotable.
As for the rest, it ranges from barely acceptable to respectable newspapers, but let's see what they say; let's look at the headlines.
Must I say more? All this, too, is trivia, all of it tabloid junk that made its way into relatively decent papers, none of it actually evidence of any sort of encyclopedic notability, none of it in the least quotable. If you have some kind of usable sources, do let us know. If you have some sourced evidence the subject might meet not just WP:MUSICBIO point 1, but any of points 2 through 12, again, let us know. Until then, however, not a shred of real evidence exists as to the subject's notability, as defined by the relevant policies; consequently, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for traslating titles, yet I have to disagree with your analysis: she's an entertainer, I don't expect to see her as the subject of economics or political articles. As pointed above, I just randomly choose a few of the hundreds of articles available on her, and still most of them are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the fact that reputable (or decent, as you prefer) newspapers and media sources regularly inform their readers about the subject's pregnancies, marriages, television appearences and similar stuff is evidence that an entertainer's career is notable. About MUSICBIO, she maybe meets it, probably fails it, I have not analyzed it but GNG generally trumps SNGs, so my vote remains. Cavarrone 19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, she wouldn't appear in the business or politics sections, but there should be some kind of significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The way I understand that, because this is how biographies work in practice, is some kind of basic overview of her life/career. Not just trivial mentions about her pregnancy issues, in other words, but some sort of framework source telling us why she's famous.
  - (For instance, in the case of another Romanian singer, Alexandra Stan, we have several of those: [38], [39], [40], [41], plus major award confirmation. That simply doesn't exist, as far as I can see, for Anghelescu.)
  - So, to reiterate, I would be interested in seeing significant coverage of the individual, as opposed to her trivial actions, and that remains to be seen, although we will probably have to agree to disagree. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, significant coverage is not necessarely supposed to be an overview of the career of a subject (while I LOVE when I find such kind of sources), and our guidelines currently do not support such interpretation. I fail to see how articles entitled to the subject, and which enterely focus on the subject are not significant coverage, or do not address the topic directly. About the examples, the Alexandra Stan sources (which except one did not really impressed me) are not so different from articles such as [42], [43], [44], [45] or [46]. Note, I am not claiming Anghelescu's notability is well-deserved, it is not my duty to judge, I am just observing she is certainly considered a major celebrity by the press in terms of attention and coverage. Whether she is a new Madonna or just some local Kim Kardashian (someone famous for being famous), that's ultimately a secondary issue. And about "trivial actions", when the press uses to record every minimal action of a subject, it happens because they consider that subject very notable (that's a side effect of notability, particularly in the entertainment field). Cavarrone 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Biruitorul, I think you just don't want to accept any argument attempting to gain deletion of this article to satisfy your craving. Between 2009-2011 Giulia was member of project "DJ Project". In 2010 along the rest of group she won Romanian Music Awards for BEST GROUP [47]. She has a lot of songs in top of Romanian Charts (for several weeks/months consecutively). If you can't check this, ask someone to help you. Also, this singer has been in rotation nationally on radio channels of Romania. You don't like some tabloids, but they just confirms its notability. As soon as Giulia became pregnant, mass-media of Romania wrote on her (on fact of her pregnancy). As soon she give birth to child, immediately she received a lot of coverage in media. Besides of this, you can find published materials about Giulia on all major Romanian media resources. You must understand that you have no chance to contest notability of this person. More than this, not only Giulia is notable, but also she has ~5 notable albums and singles. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're generating Kim Kardashian levels of trashy headlines, you're notable. At some massive amount, quantity does matter as much as quality. Pax 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: She has released several albums throughout her career. Some of them are with ro:Cat Music, a record label that's been around since 1997 (that is, more than half of the post-communist time of her country, the only time when the market was not under the monopoly of the state-owned Electrecord), which means it might be qualified as a "(an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)", as per criterion 5 from WP:BAND. The other one, Hahaha Production, is relatively new, and possibly could not be considered as such, but I think the tabloid noise about her comes from a real notability whose evidence are her albums released with Cat Music. That is what the article should focus on.- Andrei (talk) 10:38, 23 February 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 Efteling. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Hearts

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

unbuild ride with an unclear future. By now nothing more than a crystal bol with a permit-application. The Banner talk 13:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An encyclopedia does not predict the future. Wait until the ride is finished and in operation and gets some press. WP:CRYSTAL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Efteling for now. When the ride opens and gets coverage, the redirect can be expanded back to an article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above (and, when built, unless someone gets killed on the thing, it probably won't possess sufficient stand-alone notability regardless). Pax 01:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above; I think WP:HAMMER is also helpful by way of analogy. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 19 February 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. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of French Guiana

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

French Guiana has no international relations. Unlike, for example, the British Virgin Islands, which has its own foreign relations page, French Guiana is not autonomous from France and therefore has no foreign relations, just as Île de France has none. There is no foreign relations of Hawaii page; why should there be one for French Guiana? Furthermore, the page is nearly empty. Liam987 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have listed other articles of this type at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands per suggestion below. Liam987 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 01:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a series of articles by User:Conversion script (which apparently was a bot and apparently has been blocked) with the same jumpy style of text. Anyway, France handles all foreign relations for French Guiana. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into Conversion script, it seems it was a bot that updated articles to a new Wikicode version in 2002, so presumably this article existed before then and the previous revisions were lost in the conversion. Liam987 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom may wish to cruise the associated categories and bundle several more likely candidates into this or another AfD. Pax 01:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete French Guiana is not a sovereign country, therefore its foreign relations are controlled by France. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands. The only important information in this article is already covered in articles such as Borders of Suriname and Foreign relations of Suriname and I don't there is enough here for a France–Suriname relations article. Tavix | Talk 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, FG is not managing international relations on its own. Rather articles of Franco-Surinamese relations should be created. Whilst on topic, I tried to highlight this problematic back in 2010, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_20#Category:Brazil.E2.80.93French_Guiana_border --Soman (talk) 07:17, 21 February 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engino

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

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. All Google search came with advertising results. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty blatant promotion. Deb (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and spam-tagged for Speedy. Pax 01:55, 18 February 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 deleted by User:Deb per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 16:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mehroz Saqib

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

Delete: Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam autobio by a completely non-notable student, with ridiculous boasts about being a sports and music star with legions of female fans. He's posted on the article talk page that he wants to be famous [48]. Previously speedied as Mohammad Mehroz Khan. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:07, 17 February 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forex Heatmap

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Has involvement from paid/sock editors. Undisclosed paid editing was commissioned on f****r.com website. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. (Recommend term "forex heatmap" - without "The " - be redirected to heat map.) Pax 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete twofold (and 2nd time). 1. undisclosed paid editor against TOU 2. 0 or 1 RS fails GNG Widefox; talk 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I will stay out of the !vote for this nomination. However, I will point out that User talk:Karlhard#Furvah post on his talk is not conclusive evidence of him being a paid editor. In fact, two details of the post itself point to the contrary: 1) the fact that Furvah contacted him on his talk and 2) they left an email address. The question to ask is, if they've been in contact before outside of Wiki, why not use their original channel of communication and use his talk instead? And Furvah seems to think Karlhard does not have their email address... which is further support that they have not spoken prior to Furvah's post. In short, I think Karlhard had no idea that Furvah would offer money. The fact that Karlhard has edited a very large number of article of no commercial value also supports this hypothesis. Also note Karlhard's userpage which states he is rich. Granted self-description is nothing, but the evidence as a whole is overwhelming. —CodeHydro 23:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Karlhard claims not to know them [49]. I'm assuming good faith of the subject/client ... 1) understandably clients don't know how WP works else they would edit themselves, and part of that is they are likely to not know undisclosed paid editing is against the TOU (and/or that the editor hasn't disclosed), and their username isn't allowed. There's nothing wrong with paying editors (according to the rules), their edit seems quite innocent, naive even. 2) My reading of the message is that something's gone wrong with the off-wiki channel forcing on-wiki for whatever reason that is (stale job?/lost details/closed account/not responding) 3) How would the subject know this was being created in draft space unless there's been some previous off-wiki coordination? It isn't possible to AGF for both, as we see communication proof of the relationship between the two parties.
- In isolation it's a bizarre message. In fact, due to 1) I've seen this sort of message before. 4) there's edit overlap with other undisclosed paid editors e.g. User:Emilysantoss, and 5) creation of promo articles. 1-5 is strong. Widefox; talk 00:51, 21 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Key4ce

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPAM, WP:RS and WP:CORP. None of the listed references are reliable secondary sources. They are press releases, marketing claims, and advertising sites. Appears to be written by their marketing department. It's an advertisement pretending to be a encyclopedic article. - Becksguy (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently, I agree with you, because I tagged it as non-notable back in December 2014. Looking through Google, I don't see any reliable sources. Maybe I was going to nominate it for deletion and forgot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing a lot of coverage. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 13:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brahm Yadav

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

The principal claim of notability of the subject of this article is that he is leader of the Indian National Congress, which is demonstrably not the case and some or all of the article is apparrently a WP:HOAX. This article suggests someone of this name does exist as a political candidate but there is no evidence he meets the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I don't see any Hoax thing on there. If you see any, please edit that out. Subject may meet GNG and POLITICIAN #3 inclusion criteria. Sources, -[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], more. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardOSmith: -Just edited the article a little and added some reliable sources, please take a look and re-assess the article (I hope nomination concerns has been addressed). If you see any problem, please point them out here. If not, please withdraw your nomination. Thank you. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the article. However, the worst of it - the claim that he is "leader of the Indian National Congress" - was left in place and the {{cn}} tag removed from it. If that claim were true then of course he would be notable (and there would be a heck of a lot more third party coverage about him), but it isn't because the leader of the INC is Sonia Gandhi (See President of the Indian National Congress). We need to establish not whether the subject may meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN but whether they actually do. WP:POLITICIAN is, I think, easily dealt with: he is an unelected candidate with apparently no "international, national or sub-national office" so I don't believe that any of the specific requirements are met, which leaves only the GNG. Of the five references you cited above, three are about his candidature in a forthcoming election and as that is not notable per WP:POLITICIAN then the coverage is run of the mill and also non-notable. The remaining two are sound-bites about onion prices rather than significant coverage of the man so, again, suggest no notability to me. The remaining claim of notability in the article is that he has held posts within two agricultural marketing boards but as the boards themselves don't appear to be notable then I don't believe the posts held are either. So I see no evidence that inclusion guidelines are met. I am naturally inclined towards inclusion and would have felt no imperative to nominate were it not for the blatant untruth in the first sentence about being leader of the INC. That calls into question the reliability of the entire article and, to a lesser extent, whether it is merely a promotional piece created at the time of an election. Wikipedia is not a repository of everything and bad data is worse than no data at all. Therefore I still believe this article should be deleted. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh!! Do you happen to ever read the WP:POLITICIAN guideline? -See #3. Runofthemill is irrelevant here. He contented the election in 1998 and again in 2015 and have headed the multiple State Government bodies and have received multiple independent coverage for. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article meets the general notability guidelines and Politicians. Hoax contents/ references can be removed. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 09:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help me understand your rationale - and potentially sway my opinion - if you could state the reasons you think the notability guidelines are met. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the claim that he is leader of the Indian National Congress from the article. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have instead fix it. I made it, "member of the Indian National Congress". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:48, 18 February 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. Hoax. Favonian (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Abdinado

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

This is an unusual situation. The article claims that Abdinado played for the Yankees for two years, so there should be some results on Google or Google books for him. In fact, though, there are no Google results beyond Wikipedia mirrors and no Google Books results at all. The only citation in the article is to another Wikipedia article that does not provide a source for Abdinado having played for the Yankees. This may be a hoax, but even if it is not it fails WP:V. Everymorning talk 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable hoax. Sabermetricians are nothing if not thorough, and the idea that someone could have played for two years with the Yankees without any web presence whatsoever strains credulity. As an administrative matter, I further suggest that JaneHorn67 (the editor who created this article) and Rondo222 (the editor who added this individual to the New York Yankees all-time roster) are related. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:36, 17 February 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 Procedural Close. Speedy deleted (CSD A7). Non-admin close - Becksguy (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amjed raza badgami

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:15, 17 February 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engr. Babar Abbas

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:59, 17 February 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 // 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuse (band)

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy the WP:NBAND notability criteria. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert "Stewkey" Antoni. Squinge (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. References in the article are unconvincing. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - per WP:MUSBIO, where #6 reads "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (members in this band included Rick Nielsen, Tom Petersson, Thom Mooney, Robert "Stewkey" Antoni, and Bun E. Carlos). At the very least, Fuse also historically relevant as an early form of Cheap Trick. Earflaps (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Mooney and Antoni are currently at AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that there seems to be a bit of circular reasoning amongst these articles. The band is notable for having notable musicians in it, and these notable musicians are notable for being in the notable band. Also, is Fuse (band) a distinctly separate band from Nazz? At Fuse (band) it says the band played "under two monikers, Fuse or Nazz, depending on where they were gigging". It all seems a bit marginal to me. Squinge (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, I missed that fact. I change my vote to ~~Redirect to Nazz.~~ Earflaps (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote again, back to Keep, per this further explanation on the Nazz page:

Stewkey and Mooney later reconnected and played with Fuse for a brief period using two monikers, Fuse or Nazz, depending on where they were gigging. Mooney would leave again, and Fuse evolved into "Sick Man of Europe", and later (without Stewkey) Cheap Trick.[1][2]

Even if the two members listed for afd are deleted, there are still enough other notable members for MUSICBIO #6 to be perfectly valid. Earflaps (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:37, 17 February 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 14:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VDJ Rahat

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

Reason: No significant works. No significant coverage except trivial mentions in the included sources. fails WP:GNG Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current title is a result of an accidental page move that should be reverted if the article is to be kept; it's "DJ Rahat", not "VDJ Rahat". Huon (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes. I am agree with Huon. The article can be considered to be keep. The person seems to be a real musician in his country and for changing the name someone can't find the exact thing in any mentioned source. So I think we can keep this article for further improvement with the old original name "DJ Rahat". Shaharia.azam (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete name issue aside, the coverage is pretty weak otherwise, at least in English language sources. More sourcing and/or chart positions would be helpful to establish notability, otherwise I would lean toward delete weakly, as there is some coverage, I'm just not sure it rises to meet the standards. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I moved the page to DJ Rahat. DJ Rahat is a popular artist with several major albums. Despite this, he is not covered much in (English) traditional media; but there are some in Bengali. – nafSadh did say 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:33, 17 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 13:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia McConnell

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

Withdrawn~~Unsourced hagiographic BLP created by a COI editor acting under the instruction of the subject, per this Help desk post Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)~~ Even though "AFD is not cleanup", cleanup has nevertheless been done resulting in a marginally acceptable stub. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the "Find Sources: Book" above (When altered to Patricia B. McConnell) gives over 2,000 hits, I'd say there is room for a Patricia McConnell article, but of course it may not be this one.Naraht (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's why I nominated it, the page needs WP:TNT or a return to draft/sandbox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "return to draft/sandbox" is an option. It wasn't entirely created by the COI, just greatly expanded. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patricia_McConnell&oldid=557496685 is more or less your every day article in need of external references.Naraht (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, reverting and tagging for fixes is probably the better option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such a "repair" has been attempted but the result is still not an acceptable article, the only reasonable remaining option is to delete it. (Note: I am the nominator so this should not be regarded as an additional !vote.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly promotional, no acceptable references. If the subject is notable, a proper article should be written - this one just gets in the way of that. Maproom (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to do this to a fellow Wisconsinite, but, Delete without prejudice. A proper article may be possible; this ain't it. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the nominator's link to this Help desk post was intended to be to this Help desk post? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OMG Subject is notable enough in spite of the painful article. If the article is kept this awful draft stays in edit history, but the person is notable. Can we just make it a stub and keep that? It seems wrong, this article, that it is so badly written, but I don't think we should delete notable topics, OTOH I do not want to be the one voting to keep this. . MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Also, her h-index is not enough for WP:PROF, and I see no evidence that the book is notable. -- 120.23.76.162 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which on of her books is the one you refer to as "the book"? Most of the books listed are published by the subject's own company. Aiui an "adjunct professor" is a fairly junior lecturer position, so doesn't pass WP:PROF. Depending on the notability of the awards she has received they might be sufficient, but most are unsourced in this article. I still think deletion is the best option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promo and books appear to be self-published. Agree that WP:TNT applies. Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I trimmed the hagiography and added some references. It's now short, and dependent upon her faculty bio page at the university, but that's true of many academic bio articles. It's still a poor article, but I don't think there's any need to delete it. TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TheMightyQuill did a nice cleanup of the promo material and as a number of commenters above have noted she is notable for her books and radio program. I added a couple refs, one to a journal article by her and one to a Knight-Ridder piece about her book: The Other End of the Leash. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice clean-up job. Pax 07:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent work in making a decent article of it. Notable, tho not a an academic. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 23 February 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 - deleted as G11 by Jimfbleak. Closure justified under WP:SPEEDYCLOSE. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resh Marhatta

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

Delete: Fails WP:FILMBIO and not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Article apparently created by subject or relative. Possible hoax/embellishment; definitely spammy, most certainly rubbishy. Tagged G11 (and a lot more would probably apply). Pax 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 per Pax above. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:22, 19 February 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 Deleted - G5 by TexasAndroid NAC ––Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bisht

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Delete-Also made by a banned user. And yes not notable. Wgolf (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (creation by a sock of blocked user Sadman Sakibzz: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadman Sakibzz) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:35, 17 February 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. WP:CSD#A7, no claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffri Sirait

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

Delete. Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I know practically nothing about Indonesia, it seems this article is lacking in every capacity possible. It needs complete rewriting. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Clear-cut A7. Pax 07:31, 19 February 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. (non-admin closure) – nafSadh did say 00:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Fiji relations

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

Another non notable Bangladesh bilateral, no embassies, no agreements (only considering signing a MOU, no visits by leaders or ministers, no real trade. The usual want to trade more statements. The article is based on the usual spike in coverage when a non resident ambassador presents his credentials and nothing actually happens in the years after despite all the promises . I'm sure someone will come up with the silly argument that since Bangladesh has 158 million therefore this combination is notable. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article should be kept according to the general notability guidelines, seven references with significant coverage. Nomian (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more nationalist sausage-making with the same editor synthesising individual events and claims together to tryto make some notable whole. Primary sources from government agencies are not the same thing as independent reliable sources for the purpose of WP:GNG. The suggestion this meets that guideline is based only on misdirected ownership of articles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, Dhaka Tribune, Banglanews24.com, Fiji Sun don't seem to be government sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look. Some are broken links, others are Government primary sources and the others are credited to "MINFO", the Fijian Department of Information. Are any of them legitimate secondary sources? Doesn't look like it. Modus operandi for the editor in question. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bangladesh is among the most populous nations in the world; the page Foreign relations of Bangladesh (of which this is a sub-page) is lengthy and should be lengthy, as a legitimate topic of academic study. While individual subpages of this huge page may be nonsensical in isolation, "Wikipedia is not paper" and in toto these subpages (including this one) make sense. Carrite (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being among the most populous nations in the world is a far fetched argument for keeping, you've recycled this many times with no effect, what is required is evidence of significant ongoing relations which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nigeria is pretty popular as well though and yet we don't have that many pages. Jackninja5 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the population argument is weak in my view, beware of WP:OSE.Tigraan (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azeroth is also very populous and I'm sure plenty of people play WoW there. Perhaps Bangladesh-Azeroth relations is in order. Or would that be Azeroth-Bangladesh relations. Do we retain alphabetical order if one of the locations is fictional or does that only apply if the relationship itself is a work of fiction? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

size of population is no indicator of bilateral notability. I see the main reasons for a lack of Bangladesh bilateral notability is the fact it's a relatively poor country, they don't have the resources to establish embassies, agreements with other countries and they have little influence outside their own region. Having a population larger than Russia does not somehow advance them up the bilateral ladder. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy that, though. They have enough resources to contribute peace-keeping troops (and associated hardware) to UN interventions in Africa but not enough resources to set up diplomatic posts in those same countries? I think the more likely explanation is that while they are happy to commit troops (and can afford to do so), the relationships in question aren't anywhere close to important enough to establish a permanent diplomatic presence. There are certainly diplomatic relationships that are genuinely important to Bangladesh and its people and government but these Bangladesh-random country relations articles are clutching at straws. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from. they do have resources if they can send military, but yes little desire to actually establish embassies or bilateral agreements. this again is nothing to do with the size of Bangladesh's population... we all know UK has a much smaller population but much more notable bilateral relations with the rest of the world, because the UK actually promotes bilateralism. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple of sources. Overall notable. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40% of Fiji's population is of South Asian ancestry, hence making for natural cultural relations between the two countries. Also passes WP:GNG.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, 38% is Indo-Fijian (from India) reflected in the fact that almost 30% of the population of Fiji are practising Hindus. They are not (broadly) "South-East Asians", they are Indians and calling them "of South Asian ancestry" so you can shoe-horn a non-existent Bangladeshi Diaspora into the population of Fiji is silly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes I think Bangladeshis would find it offensive to be classed as Indian people. and somehow trying to suggest this adds to Bangladesh-Fiji relations is plain original research. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research? Why on earth would an Oceanic country be interested in informing the Bangladesh Prime Minister on its political situation? Indo-Fijians are not Indian people, they're Fijians with ancestry from undivided British India/modern South Asia.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is 40% according to their 2001 census. Indo-Fijians settled in Fiji during the time of the undivided subcontinent (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan). Bangladesh also has the world's third largest Hindu population. One of the sources includes a Fijian newspaper article on how the Bangladeshi prime minister was informed on Fiji's current situation, which clearly shows the importance attached to ties with Bangladesh. South Asians share strong cultural traits, heck my surname is the same as a former prime minister of Fiji.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true why isn't Bengali spoken by Indo-Fijians? The majority of the Indo-Fijians are Hindi speakers and most can speak English. Others are proficient in other Indian languages such as Bhojpuri, Urdu, Tamil, Bihari, Gujarati and Punjabi. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said there are no Bengalis in Fiji? [55] 2 --Rainmaker23 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indo-Fijians aside, Bangladesh is certainly a vital Commonwealth friend of Fiji. Bangladesh is one of the countries which pushed for a return to democracy in Fiji, and elections were held in 2014. So there is clearly a growing political, economic and cultural relationship with this Melanesian country, who are also helping bring rugby union to Bangladesh.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

helping a country in rugby union is hardly big news in the world of international relations, and rugby union is hardly known in Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said that in a cultural sense. It's growing in popularity.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one off assistance in a sport that most Bangladeshis have never heard of is really pushing it for adding to the world of international relations. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh supported Fiji's transition to civilian rule, its having growing economic interactions, and cultural exchanges (in sports). Fiji also has historic links with South Asia. Fiji's president has said that his country looks to Bangladesh with a lot interest and is "proud" of its friendship.1 I think you're pushing it by ignoring the world of international relations at large, especially the role of emerging countries. This relationship easily passes WP:GNG. --Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

other things may add to bilateral relations but I was specifically referring to rugby assistance as pushing it. if it easily passes WP:GNG, there would be unanimous keep vote... which there is not. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it still does WP:GNG. It's a significant and growing relationship. If it was Tonga or Nauru,I wouldn't give a damn. But its Fiji, the largest Pacific Island economy.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so Fiji being the largest Pacific Island economy gives it automatic notability for bilaterals? LibStar (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does strengthen the case for relations with Bangladesh, which is a traditional friend of Fiji. The Fjians were also among the early recognizers of Bangladesh's independence. Fiji has a prominent role in the Pacific Islands. Its military is also interestingly a major contributor to UN peackeeping.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the article? It goes by good sources.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, passes WP:GNG. Sources have been found during this discussion to add to the article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you have made almost identical style votes in 3 bilateral AfDs in 3 minutes like [56], it's as if you don't actually read these AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they've all be relisted at the same time. WP:AGF. Read it. And read it again. It's as if you don't actually have a clue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite remarkable coming from someone throwing bad-faith accusations about elsewhere. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you? No-one. Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person against whom you've made those bad-faith accusations. You seem quite an angry and troubled individual. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing wrong with this page. Hm2715 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock-puppet. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete *all* of these "Bangladesh-XYZ relations" articles (they should have been bundled, IMO)...and then launch the investigations for meat/sock-puppetry. Pax 08:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:36, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout. The Hit Album

(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)

Non-notable albums. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable compilation albums. No significant coverage to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nope, doesn't seem to be worthy of inclusion. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 February 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 keep. "They seem me trollin'" applies, Obvious troll is obvious. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whale

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

There is already a Cetacea article, which title could be moved to whale, and this article states "whale" excludes dolphins, despite listing killer whales and pilot whales as "whales" and dolphins as toothed whales, an animal cannot be a toothed whale but not a whale. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if anything, the rationale given in AfD is an argument to delete or merge Cetacea. Whale is certainly a notable topic, and even if the article is terrible it needs to be rewritten, not dynamited. Tigraan (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Obvious troll is obvious.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles, they are really on the same topic. Borock (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - there is clearly place for articles on whales and on cetacea, and dolphins and porpoises for that matter. If the proposer wants to be constructive edit the article to rectify the inconsistencies. |→ Spaully ^τ 13:40, 17 February 2015 (GMT)
Speedy Keep Troll AfD. Bobherry talk 13:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are thousands of years of usage in history and mythology of the "whale" construct, without regard to the specific cetacea order, making it is very much notable separately. A way to settle could be moving all the biology stuff to Cetacea and use Whale just for the historic and cultural aspects. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:04, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief

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

List that is a duplication of source material and not of a notable topic.

Also nominating Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief for the same reason. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Wikisource doesn't have this so transwiki to wikisource is the closest outcome to deletion that I'd be willing to advocate. In the article history Johnbod recommends listifying it and I'd be interested in hearing his reasons for saying that? I can potentially see value in a List of Domesday Book tenants-in-chief but not so sure why we'd want county-specific ones.—S Marshall T/C 11:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given for the prods was "not notable", which is nonsense. No attempt to justify that is given here. At the moment there are essentially bare linked lists, which could be listified (ie renamed), or expanded into one or more articles, or merged, as a list or article. But the material and links is worth having somewhere on WP or WS, though I think it is already a bit too "treated" for the latter. I agree I'd rather not see the whole country done with short lists in different places. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Johnbod.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain (article created by me). The Domesday Book tenants-in-chief were the magnates of feudal Norman England who wielded huge power. They were the billionaires of the 11th century. Each one possessed often dozens, in the case of a couple, hundreds, of manors and had no overlord but the king himself. This was the top tier of feudal society. Each one of the tenants-in-chief certainly merits his own article, although clearly in dealing with such distant history surviving biographical material is limited in the case of certain individuals, other than what lands he held, who his heirs were etc., still highly notable. This article is an important foundation article for the history of every Devon Manor, parish and village. It helps the reader to understand what a small and select group these people were and on occasion the relationships between them, at least 2 in the list were brothers and most shared a common birthplace of Normandy and had played some highly significant role (all record of which has in most cases been lost) in the Norman Conquest. There is of course further scope for development within the article. The modern history of every one of the hundreds of Devon villages begins with just one of this elite handful of 40 or so men (added to which were a handful of Normandy churches and a very few more minor tenants, e.g. a couple of dozen King's servants and thanes). I grouped them by counties because that's the way the Domesday Book was written, county by county (Devon being moreover the only English county to have its own additional version of the DB (Exon Domesday)), and because that's how English history worked for many centuries, powerful people (except the very largest magnates) were extremely parochial and tended to operate almost exclusively within one county - they concentrated their landholdings in a single county (i.e. virtually independent administrative unit) and built a power-base there by marrying into the other landowning families of that county, almost exclusively, often for several centuries. They operated local government and the magistracy of that county alone, not (generally) of any other. They virtually took it in turns to represent the various parliamentary seats within that county, and the office of Sheriff. Thus a cohesive network of county families was created. This was especially the case in remote and isolated Cornwall, where the ruling elite (landed gentry) were almost all cousins, as Richard Carew (d.1620) intimated. Adjoining Devon was similar, being located on an isolated peninsula. Can't see why this article has been nominated for deletion?? Hopefully I've shown that this is a notable topic, but I don't understand what is meant by "duplication of source material". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Tentative keep. Moving it into a national list might be difficult if the intention is to create a table, because large land-holders often held land in different counties, thus making any kind of sortable table difficult to produce. There is a lot of scope for a summary of the contents and more information to be included, splitting the article into ecclesiastical and secular land-owners, for instance. Also, there is no indication as to what manors each person owned at present; including this would be useful. A lot of work needs doing, but I don't see why this article needs to be deleted. (Unsigned post by User:Noswall59)

Good point. I would suggest that the appropriate place for a listing of manors held is in the individual tenant-in-chief's own article. As an extreme example, Baldwin the Sheriff (number 16 on the Domesday Book list), had 176 holdings in Devon, possibly too many to list in an overview article like this one. In the case of others, so little biographical information has survived in records that there is little else to write about other than their landholdings.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I certainly agree that the subject's notable ---- every county for which there is a Domesday Book entry will have coverage in, for example, the Victoria County History. But I'm not sure it's encyclopaedic. It duplicates the original source (in modern English) without adding anything to it. Do the "keep" voters intend to use this content in a navigational list?—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "without adding anything to it", which is surely not the case? It explains among other things what the future descents of these fiefdoms were, where they descended en bloc, generally as feudal baronies, for example to the Courtenay family, Earls of Devon. It also identifies those tenants-in-chief recognised as feudal barons in Sanders' 1960 work English Baronies. More than the "original source (in modern English)". It is encyclopaedic as it deals with an important and historical class of persons, the bed-rock of modern post 1066 English history, here dealt with on a county-by-county basis for the reasons explained above. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Robert, Count of Mortain held 248 manors in Cornwall so listing them all would be difficult as noted in the case of Baldwin the Sheriff above.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard navigational list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lobsterthermidor. This seems to satisfy LISTN. James500 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As almost all of the entries on the list are blue-links, would it not be better to use a self-maintaining category? Stifle (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP directs against deletion of lists for that reason. James500 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is useful as a navigational aid, in the way that the list articles on individual peerages are. The alternative might be to convert it (manually) into series of categories, but some tenants in chief had land in a number of counties, so that doing so would create a lot of category-clutter. It would be rather too like a performance by performer category, which we similarly do not allow. We similarly do not generally allow Award winners categories, but the normal outcome there is to listify the category. If it were not that a few major landowners had land in a dozen or more counties, I would not oppose the category solution, but there is not reason in appropriate cases not to have both a category and a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish managers who worked in a foreign country

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

Is this even a notable topic? The article seems to have sources, but I can't see how this topic warrants an article. It's like creating a "Filipino managers who worked in a foreign country" article. There'd be too many of them. And let's not even get started on how such an article would be maintained. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - title is so vague as to be meaningless. I expect most managers of 5* hotels in Istanbul have some foreign experience. Bazj (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the purpose seems to be "Turkish football managers who worked abroad" but even then, it's somewhat indiscriminate and does not seem like a notable topic. Valenciano (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list of "X that do Y" for every pair of X and Y might be well-sourced and comprised of X's and Y's that are notable, it does not make the list itself notable. Tigraan (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable list. IJA (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .... Football managers?, Restaurant managers?, Hospital managers?.... Yeah the list could go on!.... Anyway as noted above meaningless title and to some extent meaningless article, Can't find a shred of notability so Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable list. Giant Snowman 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from the hopelessly vague title, the subject of this list is not notable per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, with no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, I see no valid navigation purpose for this list per WP:LISTPURP. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire. Yet another "XYZs in ABC country about FGH subject" type article. Pax 07:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As fundamentally unencyclopedic as is. No indication that the topic of turkish football managers working as football managers in other countries has attracted any significant reliable coverage to justify a standalone article. Fenix down (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delete at this point. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an especially unencyclopedic article. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 February 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 - let this AfD decide the matter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jameatul Arabiah Lil-Baneena Wal Banaat

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

Delete: Not notable. User created two more similar pages (Al-Jameatul Arabiah Lil-Baneena Wal-Banaat, Haildhar, Anwara and Al-jameatul Arabiah lil baneena wal banaat Hailder anwara) and both nominated for deletion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:16, 17 February 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 - let this AfD decide the matter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-jameatul Arabiah lil baneena wal banaat Hailder anwara

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

Delete: Not notable. Another article by similar name (Al-Jameatul Arabiah Lil-Baneena Wal-Banaat, Haildhar, Anwara) and contents also nominated for deletion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable club or organisation. --The one that forgot (talk) 09:42, 17 February 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 deleted as A7 speedy by Jimfbleak (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ady Wardyto

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 and tagged as such. AKS.9955, you may want to try nominating articles for speedy deletion instead, if they satisfy the criteria for speedy deletion. It helps bring the number of AfDs down. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And deleted by Jimfbleak. Close 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 A7. COI advert for NN manager. Alexf^(talk) 20:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guramkachakhidze

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

Delete: Google search does not identity this person at all. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phijets group

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

Delete: Fails WP:ORG, not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable, most of the sources are... well hardly that. Google search reveals little but social media and mention in some travel blogs. Discant X 09:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DiscantX. It may be of some bearing that this article is basically a replacement for Zenith Air, deleted a week ago after I PRODded it. YSSYguy (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to meet notability requirements. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does not appear to be any secondary or tertiary reliable sources that explore the subject in an in-depth or in a manor which one would describe as significant coverage. Therefore the subject fails WP:GNG, and does not meet notability requirements set forth in that or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't satisfy WP:NORG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 February 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 16:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suhaas shetty

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This should go on PROD rather than on AfD, but it does not matter anyway. --BiH (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:22, 18 February 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 redirected to Oriya language as {{R from capitalization}}. Non-admin closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oriya Language

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

Delete: Article already exists on this topic Oriya language. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Oriya language --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems obvious enough. It sounds painful to wait the whole week before taking down the AfD notice to make the redirect work, but that's the procedure, isn't it? Tigraan (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this AfD and I would humbly request if this article can be deleted straight since it does not add any value / information. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 deleted as A7 speedy by Bbb23 (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Wolfe

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion (AfD tag had been removed by author). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 15:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Bhattacharya

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

Looks like a unotable actor. (And love how his first role says cameo appearance-considering it can't be a cameo if you are not known, its a bit part. and the only other role is a tv show that probably can be redirected. Wgolf (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Pax 02:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. One could also think about making it a redirect to TV show Thik Jeno Love Story, if they have or have had substantial role in that. However right about now, I'm seeing absolute zero sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:52, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Day

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

Delete: Google search did not come up with results. Not notable and fails WP:Movie Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this project will become a real film. This supposed 2015 film is not even in the IMDb filmographies for the cast and crew. All I can find are tweets from the director. Not a hoax but neither notable nor verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Non notable or rather too soon if it is real. Wgolf (talk) 21:35, 20 February 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 deleted as G12 speedy by Jimfbleak (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.artipot.com/articles/1860223/using-online-tutorials-to-educate-yourself-about-adobe-photoshop.htm). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online Photoshop Tutorials

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

Delete: Not notable.. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Flagged for CSD G12, Copyvio was a high 90's match with a large amount of copied text. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 (A7). Peridon (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Travelmarket

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

Delete: Fails WP:ORG Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion as per A7. SD0001 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarpin

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

Delete: Fails WP:NAD Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative transwiki Not in Wiktionary as of now. User:Muhammad Nafi is the exact same content so please take care of that also. Though I don't see other mentions in other dictionaries. And what does this probably have to do with Sarpin Rizaldi, the almost exclusive subject I can find for the word? [57] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAD, and after some searching on Google Books and Google Groups, I think it is quite unlikely that this word would pass Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion, so I don't support transwikiing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect to Wiktionary without excellent sources. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:32, 20 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snita

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

Delete: Fails WP:MUSBIO. Page written by the person herself. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Snita Pramanik to this discussion, as it appears to be about the same person. If I've done this incorrectly, please correct the addition - I don't think I've added anything to an AfD before. Peridon (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted Snita Pramanik since it was a virtually identical (but shorter) version of Snita. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the COI very explicitly, but definitely promotional in tone with no outstandingly usable independent sources found. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know who is writing this, but they definitely don't seem to take any notice of warnings. She may be a great singer, but a list of what looks like every gig she's performed at isn't what an encyclopaedia article is about. I usually look through 10 pages of ghits, but I've gone to 16 this time because it's not an easy search. I went through again taking out 'mahey', 'mehay' and 'marcin' and still can't see anything that looks like this Snita. The author doesn't give any references either. I'll have one last try at communicating with the author, but don't hold your breath... Peridon (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article too immature and unsourced for the mainspace as of now. Content from both Snita and Snita Pramanik has been added to Draft talk:Snita Pramanik, from where it may be picked up for developing the draft. SD0001 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Peridon: About that second article, Snita Pramanik: Would it be eligible for A10 speedy? Looks like a smaller but identical version of the Snita article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That ping worked. Oh hang on, they've patched it now. Probably would count as an A10. Are you working on this one too? I asked Ritchie to take a look after I couldn't find anything - but the surname came up from the other article. You wouldn't believe how many Snitas there are.... Peridon (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not working on it, just came to look at the AfD after noticing your note on Ritchie's page. Since you concur with A10 I will go ahead and delete it. It's not uncommon for something to be speedied in the middle of an AfD. That will simplify this discussion in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this and Snita Pramanik I found a passing mention in the Kolkata Telegraph but that's it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Doesn't appear to be meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at this time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^speak up! 05:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watchman Fellowship

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

Non-notable ministry, fails WP:ORG. Tgeairn (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If no activity occurs for another seven days, can we just consider this a WP:PROD and delete? Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are not many organisations operating in this field. This does not appear to be a one-man-band (for which I would certainly vote to delete). However I know nothing of it and do not feel able to give a stronger vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Christian countercult movement. Very selective. I just added the cite from the St. Petersburg Times to its entry in the list of organizations at Christian countercult movement, and that seems like all that is worth merging. There were a few brief mentions in books, brief mentions in rather obscure sources in News, and a fair number of mentions on Google, but nothing that looked like an RS. Mostly blogs and fundamentalist Christian sites. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:39, 17 February 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 Money Ratnam. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Nair

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

Put a prod up but changing it to a AFD-only has directed one film so far, too soon issue here. Wgolf (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, as WP:TOOSOON. There were lots of routine reviews of the movie but very little information about the director. The best source I could find was this, which tells us that he was an assistant director for 13 years. But that's about all. Perhaps later. (Note that this is English sources only. There may be more in other languages.) – Margin1522 (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The subject's first name was misspelled in the templates (it is Santhosh, not Santosh). I just corrected it. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there's more information to make him meet notability standards. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Money Ratnam -There are quite sources but enough to help subject meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG standard at this time. For now redirect it to what they are known for --PER WP:ATD-R, -[58], [59], [60], etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:38, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peripera

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

This brand lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by WP:ORG. Random86 (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, where's the sourcing? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline speedy CSD-A7, pure promo and nothing more to say. Gaff (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ORG not satisfied. Just because a notable band is shilling for it doesn't make it in and of itself notable. Notability is not inherited. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skorydov

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

No notability established for this project. seicer | talk | contribs 04:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Redirect to NJRS -Target article is at afd along with this one. Redirect if kept, otherwise delete. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom, this does company does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minimal information, not notable, nothing really to merge. But the meager info could go to the parent article, if that is kept. --Gaff (talk) 05:53, 17 February 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 20:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Cabinet Care

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

Other than being nominated in lists, I'm not sure how this kitchen-focused company is all that notable. seicer | talk | contribs 04:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few local favorites lists. Not much coverage. Sideways mention in the WSJ. THe cabinent trade mag reference is a glorified reprint of a company press release. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Gaff (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ failing WP:CORP. "Mr Cabinet Care facilities have grown into a 24,000 square foot factory in Orange County..." sounds impressive until you realize that's substantially smaller than an average-sized city block; i.e., a modest, ordinary commercial building rather than the sprawling complex the writer hopes the reader will mentally envision. Pax 02:29, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blakk Soul

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

No notability established. Sources mostly go to iTunes or music track listings. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has been established as more credible references have been added. XXL links, All Music, linked wikipedia pages, etc. --2601:8:9000:EB3:C174:B6CA:CD4:11F2 (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Non notable singer. Wgolf (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Non notable singer. Also more than likely written by subject of the article (it amazes me how many people use their real names/close to their real names as their UNs...) Aaekia (talk) 20:05, 22 February 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. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnypark

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

Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete Most sources, if not all, are about this mall being acquired by a Rebosis property company (no article on WP). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete… this is not a mall that is notable and no one will be searching for it. Thewildone85 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 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 Living Legends of Aviation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Living Legends of Aviation award winners

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

WP:IINFO. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Living Legends of Aviation at maximum. No need for separate articles with less than 100 recipients as of now. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:34, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kasimkhan Zainuddin

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

does not deserve a wiki page , no secondary sources give enough information. Summichum (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No passing mentions and no individual sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another long-dead mullah. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Pax 04:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Journal of Physics

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

Non-notable journal. The "impact factor" listed in the article is from a company called "Universal Impact Factor", identified as a fake by Jeffrey Beall (see this list]). Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing suggests this is a notable journal and as summarized in the nomination it does not meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nomination covers it. Fails all applicable inclusion criteria. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:01, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Scarola

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Participation in TUF not enough and was eliminated in first round. If he had made it to the final perhaps a redirect but he did not. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Has no top tier fights and fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Independently notable as a tv personality, bjj practitioner, and instructor. He was featured on multiple articles by various independent sources of BJJ. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:MANOTE [61] CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NMMA. Lacks significant coverage since it consists of routine sports reporting and passing mentions. Has no achievements that meet any other notability standard. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the ultimate fighter season 6 . Independently notable as a tv personality, bjj practitioner, and instructor. He was featured on multiple articles by various independent sources of BJJ. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please just vote once. I will strike your earlier vote since I assume the new vote represents your latest opinion. Papaursa (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no top tier fights so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA and he only gets passing mentions in most of the sources. Appearing on TUF and losing your first fight is not sufficient to support a claim of notability. In my opinion, his speedy departure from TUF does not merit even a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all. Not really mentioned that much, and doesn't pass based on WP:NMMA unfortunately.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 06:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:33, 17 February 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. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM: Guard Shield

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

Non-notable game. A web search turns up only downloads, Amazon, and Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment searches for "Prism: Threat Level Red", the title of the commercial version, do turn up some results that mention this version, but not by name. Could be worth renaming and adding that info. Deunanknute (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use the video game reliable sources custom Google search to establish notability:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/11/26/new-prism-for-free/

http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/03/11/rival-working-on-national-guard-games

Not nearly enough for an article, and no worthwhile redirect targets (dev is a redlink, likely NN[62][63]). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 03:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking over Czar's sources, I'm not even seeing enough for a stub, it's just saying that there's an update for the game that no one expected and that it deals with the National Guard. If anyone knows Russian, this might be good, but it's only a single paragraph, so I doubt it'll tip the scales too much. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:51, 23 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gooseneck, Isle of Man

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

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--do ncr am 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --do ncr am 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I realize that this is a group of proposals, but it seems silly to copy this to each one, so consider this to be ten identical !votes. I find the "speedy keeps" here to be a bit precipitous since these articles do not have any references at all, something that is generally required for Wikipedia articles. I don't know why these particular articles are seen as exceptions to that rule. Also, merge is a valid afd result. There may be other mechanisms as well (there's rarely only one way to do things on WP), but I've seen other AfDs result in useful merging. I have not found significant resources for the three of these that I checked. Unless I am overlooking something, these do not meet General notability guidelines. LaMona (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a notable location. I've added to the article. Sources available include book1,^[1] book2,^[2] and article1.^[3]

References

^ David Wright (2013). 100 Years of the Isle of Man TT: A Century of Motorcycle Racing. The Crowood Press Ltd.
^ Geoff Crowther (2007). "Embodied Experiences of Motorcycling at the Isle of Man TT Races". International Journal of Motorcycle Studies.
^ Ray Moore; Claire Corkill (2012). "Memorials from the Isle of Man TT Races". (click "query" and search on location=Gooseneck)

There's also a promising source for which I don't have any access, but I found by searching in Google books on (Gooseneck "Isle of Man"). It's an academic article behind paywall:

"Spectators’ Negotiations of Risk, Masculinity and Performative Mobilities at the TT Races", by Allen Terry, Avril Maddrell, Tim Gale, and Simon Arlidge, (April, 2014), in Mobility, a Taylor & Francis journal, with full abstract
This paper explores the particular assemblage of place, event and individual identity performances that occur each year in the Isle of Man in and through the TT (Tourist Trophy) motorcycle races. These road races are associated with a high degree of risk for the racers and the confluence of over 30,000 visitors and 10,000 motorcycles also presents potential risks for spectators and residents alike. Both motorcycling and risk-taking have been associated with particular forms of masculinity, notably hegemonic, working class and youthful masculinities. Using detailed surveys of spectators we argue that the TT races, while undoubtedly dominated by men and predicated on a cultural privileging of speed and skill, are grounded in varying combinations of determinate and reflexive attitudes to risk, reflecting the performance of a variety of gendered, ‘biker’ and wider identity-based positionalities. Findings also highlight a particular inter-relation of mobilities and place identities at the TT races and bring to light the highly significant and under-researched embodied, performative and emotional mobilities of spectators. The conceptual and methodological importance of (a) situated research of both mobilities and gender in specific place-temporalities and (b) wider surveys of motorcyclists to complement ethnographic studies of small cohorts are also stressed.

That last mentions Gooseneck, may have specifically studied spectators there, but I don't know. And then searching on "Spectators negotiations of risk" in that paper's title, i find:

New research on the Isle of Man TT Races, a Manx blog that reviews six papers and books:
- the Crowther article above.
- "Identity in the “Road Racing Capital of the World”: heritage, geography and contested spaces" is a 2014 article which sounds especially promising to be explicitly about locations.
- "The Island of Blood’: death and commemoration at the Isle of Man TT Races" whose abstract reports that 237 competitors have been killed in the races over 104 years.
- Corkill, C & R, Moore 2012 The Island of Blood': death and commemoration at the Isle of Man TT Races'. World Archaeology 44:2 (pp. 248-262), within which there is a search screen where if search on location "Gooseneck" yields 10 memorials to six persons, which I think all are spectators killed there. There must be news articles about those deaths.
- Gaulkins one, online, which does not mention Gooseneck
- another item i didn't check

Editors of this Gooseneck article and similar Isle of Man location articles should get and use all of these. I voted Keep above. --do ncr am 23:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question Why on earth are there no photos in the article? There are tons of Flickr photos available, and sometimes Flickr photos have compatible licensing, and there are great pics of racers leaning way over. I added External links to photos and to videos. The videos are great, too. I found one showing two-way traffic having a close encounter between a van and a motorbike, which is especially alarmingly as they passed by driving on the wrong side of the road. --do ncr am 23:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I already looked at Flickr, there are only three very fuzzy snaps with the correct licence taken from the exit using a 'phone. It really needs an image taken from the entrance to show the 90 degree bend, the steep incline and the exit by the side-road. I'll check Geograph. I haven't looked at any other Flickr images with the 'wrong' licences, as from my experience, few Flickr users respond to requests to change the licence and it's pointless going to lengths when there is a nom with an obvious agenda. Co-incidentally, I have just arranged for a fairing image for Peel Engineering Company - an IoM located manufacturer - the licence was changed for me but is again wrong - thanks for the reminder, I'll try again!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in There were two suitable on Commons. Also, article has expand fourfold since original nomination. If this were a vote (it isn't) mine'd be Keep. -Arb. (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as you've probably noticed I've added Commons Cat + more images into it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an historic location, the end of the tree-line and start of the Mountain section - not just a minor bend - and a traditional signalling point for TT riders' own race timings from their crew, slowing enough to get a good look on the exit.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other nine now all closed as Keep. -Arb. (talk) 21:28, 22 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Kranz

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

Reason The subject of this article may not satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, the references of the article does not establish the notability of this actor. AadaamS (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR with roles such as in Dollhouse and The Cabin in the Woods, referencing could use some work.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a few interviews by not insignificant outfits, I would suggest they assert notability:
  - Fran Kranz on Joss Whedon and Broadway’s ‘You Can’t Take It With You’ in Variety
  - Another one in Playbill, not exactly "hard hitting" but significant none the less
  - Yet another in Rolling Stone. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would assert the actor has a strong enough cult following to warrant WP:NACTOR as his position in the plot of Dollhouse was integral to the climax of the story. His characterization of the Fool in "The Cabin in the Woods" is comparable to Bruce Campbell's start with Evil Dead. Co-starring with Chris Hemsworth, Nathan Fillion and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is not insignificant, and his fans have noticed his peculiar brand of humor on screen.--Flipward(talk) 08:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The notability of Bruce Campbell, Hemsworth, Fillion and PSH can't be inherited by Fran Kranz. In order to prove his notability, you must provide references he is notable in his own right, not names of other notable actors. FK is lucky to have devoted fans but the issue of this AfD is whether FK is generally notable. AadaamS (talk) 09:51, 17 February 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.

Note I deleted the Notability template from the main page today, March 4, 2015, based on the above discussion. Seems to have been a simple oversight, since this issue was discussed and concluded during the past month.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Relisted 4 times? Really? The comments below requesting that the article be deleted are correct. We do not keep unsourced BLPs. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaria Latini

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

Strange article that is an effectively unsourced BLP and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (push) @ 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this page only became like this after 11 edits from User:31.52.242.199. I have reverted these edits, but retained the AfD notice. Please re-view the page, it should meet standards again. —Msmarmalade (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (visit) @ 13:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Msmarmalade: I'm a little unclear on why you believe that this article meets WP:GNG, given the lack of a single reliable source (at least, reliable in the sense our policies intend) in the article as you restored it, could you explain why you believe it does? --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Joe Decker: I mean in the sense that it was nominated for removal due to the edits that made it unreadable, and it is now only as bad as any other article at this level of notability, and just needs a bit of work. I believe a simple {{BLP unsourced}} tag would be more appropriate than deleting entirely.—Msmarmalade (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:24, 17 February 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 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Seunghee

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

The subject of this article is a former member of F-ve Dolls, and has done little outside the band. Her solo activities are winning a pageant, a few minor roles in TV shows, and a few song collaborations with other artists. I don't believe she passes WP:GNG and WP:MUS. Random86 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating F-ve Dolls member Jin Hyewon, who has done nothing outside the band except a cameo TV show appearance:

Delete both no outside notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the first clause of WP:NMG: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." A very iffy subject to include in an encyclopedia. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no notable at all. --EliOrni (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per non-notability. --Chiya⁹² 13:55, 18 February 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. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian polymaths

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath Dweller (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The previous AFD determined the inherent difficulties in a list of polymaths, whether or not those are subdivided by nationality (itself somewhat contentious, especially for historical figures). The frequent peacock descriptions in the current content ("true polymath", " true Renaissance woman", "outstanding", "ardent disciple", etc.) do nothing to assuage my concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (intone) @ 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 20:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one's easier to swallow than the list of geniuses as the criterion is much better defined: being outstanding in several different fields. Possibly it may need to be pruned, but that's not a reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior Afd decision. I spit out my old lvote: ptui. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath. I don't see "outstanding" and "fields" as clear terms such that we can articulate a clear inclusion criteria. Who determines what an "outstanding" contribution is? Editors? Or do we fall back on "list of people who have been called a polymath" or "...whose work has been called outstanding in multiple fields"? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lists are a major component of Wikipedia's navigation system. The List of Italian polymaths is primarily a navigation aid. It helps readers who are looking for examples of polymaths on Wikipedia. No list, no aid. We should provide something rather than nothing, otherwise we just have a blatant gap in the navigation system. Let the editors work through the subjectivity problem. Wikipedians are a smart bunch. The Transhumanist 09:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TT, the main article on Polymaths was deemed irredeemable, because of inherent problems of verification over the label "polymath". You've not addressed that argument. The term is just used too loosely, to mean too many things. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:23, 17 February 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 20:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Duplisea

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

Actress who has only small parts in very unknown films. Wgolf (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I deleted a comment of what she is apparently best known for-being extremely fat. Which just comes out too mean. Wgolf (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I am not being mean. I don't hate Angelina Duplisea. I meant she is notable for being a sizable modeler. (Look it up) I know it kinda came out wrong, but that is NO way to help the arrival creator make it any better. Now I would suggest you stop accusing me of doing such a thing and NOT criticize my edits. Zucat (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The films are not earth shattering. Even at that, one of them she is not on the 26 person long cast list we have. No where near passing notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My news sweeps did not come up with any hits (US news, US magazines, entertainment-related, fashion-related, unfiltered (5 SERP pages)) although there is some image consistency (an unofficial measure of notability). Doesn't meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:57, 17 February 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 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Taehyun

AfDs for this article:

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

I've recently have come across the phenomena of fans creating pages for every member in a group including those who have done very little solo work. Since this member has no significant solo contributions and has done no notable work outside of the group I feel this page merely provides a very small amount of redundant information. Peachywink (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:he is not notable work Outside of Winner (band) (Mrchurang (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I've fixed the nomination. Please close this no earlier than one week after this comment, barring WP:SNOW or procedural reasons. Thanks, ansh 666 05:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree there aren't yet sufficient notability sources for him outside of membership in Winner (band). Redirect to the band. - Becksguy (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable. Random86 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 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) -- Sam ^Sing! 13:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nawabpur Road

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

This is an article about a road, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It contains a few offline references, but I suspect they would be along the lines of "XYZ is on Nawabpur Road". It has been tagged for notability for more than a year, and I believe it would be difficult for it to meet the criteria n WP:GEOROAD. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the busiest road in the capital city of this country. Andrew D. (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a lot of history, dating from at least the Mughal Empire. It has also been Wikified. -Arb. (talk) 15:40, 22 February 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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Friel

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

Delete: seriously questionable notability. Tragic deaths, even murders, are not automatically notable, as has long been established on Wikipedia, unless I am missing something here. Quis separabit? 03:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one-event does not raise to enclyclopedic level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Homicide involving non-notable subjects with no sociopolitical fall-out. Pax 08:17, 19 February 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Bukilić

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

No evidence of notability Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not be removed. I made a research, there is evidence online such as interviews of the singer and he participated in well known festivals in balkan such as "Let ka zvijezdama" and "Suncane Skale". ^[1] --46.161.90.234 (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.kolektiv.me/27328/Milan-Bukilic-za-Kolektiv--Znam-da-mogu-uspjeti

Article that mentions Milan in DAN Newspaper - Google News ^[1]

Article that mentions Milan in RTCG - Google News ^[2] --77.222.13.113 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 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. Article's subject has not been proven to exist. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jhungail

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

Covers the same topic as the page Jhangail (deleted 6 times due to lack of notability, recreated by a crowd of sockpuppets and salted) and Jhangail (Baloch tribe), which was created by the same sockpuppets and deleted after a discussion. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I can't find anything to verify the existence of this group. Jhangail appear to be a type of woollen trousers. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator forgot to mention JHANGAIL (all caps), deleted twice in June 2014. So total of 9 attempts and no-one has come up with any sources: Noyster (talk), 12:19, 24 February 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 Deleted G7 by Tom harrison Nac –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Music in the South West

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

Seems to be a recently established music event in the southwest of England. Article is cited to a variety of non-secondary 'stuff on the internet' and I can't see any reliable independent news coverage online. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In creating the article I did not find a large number of secondary sources however, the two given are of excellent quality. BBC Radio is an extremely reputable source as is the article from the Bristol Post, which is the region's biggest daily newspaper. On re-reading the article I note that it doesn't actually use the name New Music in the South West (an odd omission I grant), but it is clear from the context that the entire article is about NMSW. Keep Michael W Chance (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article now contains an additional reference to a secondary source, namely the Bristol based Weekend magazine. Michael W Chance (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there was any proof this magazine exists, it would be completely insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Even if there was any proof"? It's not hard to find, just Google "the weekend" magazine bristol. Michael W Chance (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable event with no reliable third party news coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON Theroadislong (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. As a newbie I think Sionk's implication that I have invented a source to support a spurious article flies in the face of the guidelines I read in preparation of the article (not least presumed good faith). But the TOOSOON argument is, I suppose, reasonable in the circumstances. Michael W Chance (talk) 08:51, 20 February 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. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac:187

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

non-notable per WP:BOOK, no independent reviews found, possible advertising Deunanknute (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources for this book and I think that the author's page (and the page for his film) could probably be deleted as well via AfD. This book just doesn't seem to be notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have any coverage at all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 21 February 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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me to Church (Sinéad O'Connor song)

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

The artist may be notable, but this article fails WP:NSONG. This title should probably be redirected to I'm Not Bossy, I'm the Boss as an {{R from song}}. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my view, the following three sources [64] [65] [66] are enough to meet WP:NSONG. Everymorning talk 02:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable song, Fails GNG as well as NSONG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the three sources devoted to the song as pointed out by Everymorning. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Sources consist of WP:Routine passing mentions of first single from her new album; WP:TOOSOON to tell if it'll be a hit with lasting social impact. Pax 08:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Sources consist of WP:ROUTINE mentions of the song's existence, and nothing written or sourced in the article comes even close to satisfying WP:NSONGS. The mere fact that a song can be sourced as existing does not, in and of itself, constitute a reason why it warrants its own separate encyclopedia article rather than a simple mention in the article on the album from whence it came, and even as someone who liked this song quite a lot I'm not aware of any particular reason why it should be considered any more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 21 February 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. Article's subject is found to be nothing more than a definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extramural

AfDs for this article:

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

This article looks like a dictionary entry to me. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NAD. There is wikt:extramural which does a good job of deifining the word. Wayne Jayes (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD... just like they did back in 2004. —Noah 16:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a Wikipedia article. It's a dictionary definition shading into a mini-essay. No sources (what could there be other than dictionaries?) - Like others I refer to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Now you could imagine an article about Extramural education, but it would be titled as such. This one isn't the germ of it, it's about the word: Noyster (talk), 12:37, 24 February 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 snow close/speedy delete. With no coverage in reliable sources and nothing coming up in a search, it's fairly obvious that this is a hoax. Even if we wait the full seven days, the outcome of this is fairly clear. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallout of 1956

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

Listing for deletion for no indication of notability. An edit war has broken out with the speedy deletion tag being removed several times. AfD to help the deletion "stick" and prevent further edit warring. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in fact, speedy delete as an obvious hoax. No such town, no such nuclear incident. Meters (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as obvious hoax. SchreiberBike talk 03:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously Liam987 (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Delete – hoax all around.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:23, 17 February 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irandam Kadhal

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NF. APK whisper in my ear 02:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources whatsoever for the claims of notability. (Serious POV concerns as well.) Tigraan (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:WEB and WP:NFILMS. "This short film was released on June 30,2014 on Youtube and Facebook By Sriram. It got more than 2,000 views." Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 February 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Ponnu Venum

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NF. APK whisper in my ear 02:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube film with more than 3,900 views. Delete. —Cryptic 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (I speedied its producer and top-billed actor. —Cryptic 15:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: fail WP:WEB and WP:NFILMS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 February 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 all. Articles' subject is found to not be notable enough for separate articles. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Iran

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

fails WP:GNG. part of sprawling series of non resident ambassadors. see related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Belarus.

also nominating:

Delete all per decision in previous AfD's. Liam987 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion sorting

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Renata (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Every one is superseded by the nice table at Ambassadors of Iceland. Pax 08:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous discussions. Tavix | Talk 01:30, 23 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wong (artist)

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

This article was proposed for deletion via WP:PROD, but I have some doubts so I'm bringing it here. The article is biased promotion of Paul Wong, and much of it has been written by User:Paulwongprojects, who clearly has a conflict of interest. However, just because the article is bad doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about the subject. Per WP:ARTIST, an artist is notable if their work "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." According to the article, at least, Paul Wong's work is in the collections of MoMa and the National Gallery of Canada. Also, the article was not created by Paulwongprojects, and predated that user's extensive promotional editing. Liam987 (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added a couple of specific references that verify the 2005 Governor General's Awards in Visual and Media Arts and his work in the MoMA collection. This article needs a lot of housekeeping but there are clear indications that the subject meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Speedy keep. Easily meets WP:ARTIST -- Governor General's Award, in MoMA and National Gallery of Canada. All of this can be verified. Article should have been tagged for references and edited for wording, if it was inappropriate. freshacconci talk to me 18:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should have been tagged for ref improve and copyedit not deletion, a quick use of Google leads you to the National Gallery of Canada where he is described as "One of Canada’s leading video artists...".--KTo288 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Jazz (producer)

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

Article is too old for BLP Prod, but no reliable sources to establish notability. All sources given are WP:SPS. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Liam987 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources given are his website, plus a few social networking cites of the subject. There is nothing to suggest he is a notable enough musician to have his own article. Aerospeed (Talk) 04:20, 24 February 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alessio Foconi

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

Fencer who has had some success on the junior level, but has not yet had any significant success as a senior. Junior success is not sufficient to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article on the ground that he earned three bronze medals in the Fencing World Cup: one in the 2008 Espinho World Cup, one in the 2011 Shanghai Grand Prix and one in the 2015 Bonn Grand Prix. He also took a team gold medal in the 2014 Havana Grand Prix. World Cup events are the top-level competitions in the sport after the Olympic Games and the World Championships. Foconi also won the 2013 *senior* (assoluti) Italian championships, which is in my opinion a significant result as Italy is a top-ranking nation in foil. The rankings I mentioned were senior ones and it was incorrect to add "junior" in front of them; please read the sources provided. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Success in lesser events doesn't make him notable. No success shown in adult European or World championships. The article's link to his FIE record shows his ranking as being in the under-23 category. Like the nom, I would call that a junior ranking since it's certainly not the top level of fencing. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the part about the rankings. Those mentioned in the article for 2010–11 and 2011–12 are senior ones: Foconi hasn't fenced in junior since 2009. These rankings have a "S" like "senior" in front of them on the EFC link you're mentioning. I don't know how it could be clearer. Everyone can see for themselves. About "lesser events", dismissing success in World Cup events seems a bit like dismissing success in WTA Premier tournaments because they're not Grand Slam. In fencing a Grand Prix weighs the same in World Cup points as a continental championship like the Europeans. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the IP made the same mistake I did. I clicked on the external EFC link in the article and got this [67] which shows only an under 23 ranking. Even using the rankings you correctly pointed out, he's only ranked 34th. I don't think that's enough to show notability, especially when you consider that boxing (a far more popular sport) requires being ranked in the top 10 to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, it was baffling me. I see how it can be confusing. I'm not actually saying Foconi is notable for his ranking. As there are no fencing-specific notability criteria that I know of, I operated under the assumption that a medal in a World Cup event (ie a Grand Prix or a World Cup per se, to the exclusion of satellite events of course) was enough. I write almost only about fencing on en:, so I'm not very well aware of notability criteria for other sports.

To complete my previous explanations, all top-ranked fencers usually attend these competitions. In the Löwe von Bonn, in which Foconi got his last bronze, all Top 20 fencers attended there but one, who is injured. The competitions also use the same formula as the World Championships. There are eight a season, five World Cups and three Grand Prix. So I'd say that, *within fencing*, they're comparable to the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 for tennis. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shii (tock) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no appearances at a European or World championship or at the Olympics it's hard to argue that he's competed at the highest level. Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for athletes and a rank of 34 doesn't seem high enough to show notability. Comparing this to tennis is irrelevant and I would say misleading since there are far more tennis players than fencers. The coverage consists of routine reporting of sports results and not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. He may become notable but right now it's at least WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on the first sentence–the number of fencers is restricted to four by country at the European and the World championships (three per country for the Olympics). Italy sends their four Olympic team champions, while weaker countries can send fencers that have no international ranking. At the 2013 Europeans for instance the best-ranked Austrian in men's foil was No.60 and the best-ranked Portuguese was No.353. There is no number restriction at World Cups, so all the best fencers are there regardless of their country. Final phases of World Cups are at least the same level of competition as European or Worlds. Also for the sake of precision, 34th is Foconi's current ranking. His best end-of-the-season ranking is 24th in 2012. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:03, 23 February 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. postdlf (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H.A.B.E.S.H.A. Inc.

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

Promotional article from a single-purpose account. If the topic is at all notable, then still this article would have to be rewritten to become a neutral encyclopedic piece. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all sources are self-published or irrelevant. Bazj (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shii (tock) 01:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promo crap that belongs elsewhere, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:32, 17 February 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jemal Inaishvili

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

After removing the unsourced claims, there is not much to this article. It should either be expanded with Reliable Sources or deleted S Philbrick (Talk) 01:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Members of Parliament pass WP:POLITICIAN. Easily verified with a Google search. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Member of a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clearly passes the notablity guidelines for politicians. The article needs to be expanded though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 23 February 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. Ged UK 14:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Glaser

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

Other than some primary and self-published blog type sources, I can't find anything to suggest that this person is really notable outside of the film Pinching Penny. (And even then that article looks like it's barely on the cusp of notability itself, but is close enough to where I'll probably not nominate it.) Since Glaser is related to that, I figured nominating him instead of just redirecting him would be the safe bet here since there may have been coverage I missed. On a side note, there is a bit of WP:WALLEDGARDEN going on here, as there were a number of Glaser-related pages that were created for this person that I will nominate for deletion shortly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to note that after trying to clean up Pinching Penny, I realized that it didn't have enough notability to pass WP:NFILM and have nominated it for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete creating a non-notable film not enough to make a director notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability under WP:BIO or WP:DIRECTOR. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stall (film)

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

This is one of several articles related to Dan Glaser, whose article I will nominate for deletion shortly. Ultimately what this boils down to is that this is an article for a film that has yet to be filmed and looks like it fails WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-love how a person named Unknown is playing someone ha ha, but really, this looks like a film that never came out. Wgolf (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not determine any assertion of notability. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFF. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Fistful of Nothing

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

I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately anything other than your run of the mill non-notable self-published book. Other than a handful of self-published blog reviews and primary sources, there just isn't anything out there to show that this passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:NB Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not asserted in the context of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:00, 24 February 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. postdlf (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Cullen

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

No major league playing time. Chinese Professional Baseball is not one of the leagues named at WP:BASE/N. No indication of a significant college career John from Idegon (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails true "notability." More like "barely noticeable." Student7 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 February 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. withdrawing AfD after improvements DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobo Ice Cream

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

pure promotionalism, no good evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple citations to in-depth reliable coverage including the Irish Independent, the biggest selling broadsheet newspaper in Ireland, recipient of one of the Guild of Fine Food's Great Taste Awards and available at pretty much any major supermarket in the country. I'm not endorsing or promoting anything - I've never seen it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following extensive work by Ritchie. There is still a touch of promo in the wording - I would prefer 'has received positive reviews' to 'has been praised' (yes, I know I'm a nitpicker...), and possibly a couple more tweaks, but I think there is sufficient notability shown. Peridon (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - correctly sourced and not really promotional (although this might have changed for the better since nomination). Tigraan (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed as Keep but someone was unhappy so reopened. –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 17 February 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.

[wright-1] David Wright (2013). 100 Years of the Isle of Man TT: A Century of Motorcycle Racing. The Crowood Press Ltd.

[crowther-2] Geoff Crowther (2007). "Embodied Experiences of Motorcycling at the Isle of Man TT Races". International Journal of Motorcycle Studies.

[moore-3] Ray Moore; Claire Corkill (2012). "Memorials from the Isle of Man TT Races". (click "query" and search on location=Gooseneck)

[4] ttp://www.kolektiv.me/27328/Milan-Bukilic-za-Kolektiv--Znam-da-mogu-uspjeti

[5] ttp://www.dan.co.me/?nivo=3&rubrika=Sarena%20strana&clanak=434440&datum=2014-05-15&naslov=Kompozicije%20kvalitetnije%20od%20Evrovizijskih

[6] ttp://www.rtcg.me/magazin/muzika/10756/video-mila-nikic-pobjednica-leta-ka-zvijezdama.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]