Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 21

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 21
Medal record
Mens Judo
Representing USA
US Armed Forces Far Eastern
1st Tachikawa Invitational Armed Forces Judo tournament
US Air Force Championship
Inland Empire Championship
National AAU Championship

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 March	22 March >

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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Wiki

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

This article does not belong here, as it is not notable. Like bonjour, mon amore~ 23:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:WEBCRIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This wiki seems like a pretty nice repository for Disney facts and info, but is just not good enough in the notability department on WP. Google News Search gives only passing mentions as information sources (like "According to Disney Wiki, (some sort of facts)"). Content is mostly (if not all) lifted from that wiki's own entry on that wiki [1]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic crap that belongs anywhere but here. –Davey2010^Talk 05:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Like bonjour, mon amore~ 23:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:WEB. --Jersey92 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 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 Big lie. Seems the agreed solution DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goebbels effect

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

I think this article is a botched attempt to create an article about a quote that was misattributed to Goebbels. See the wikiquote here ([[2]]). The article is so poorly written as to be nearly incomprehensible and the sourcing is inadequate. Gaff (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was a PROD that was challenged. The original rationale for the PROD read "This term appears to be made up. While Joseph Goebbels is often attributed with the quote "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." (see wq:Joseph Goebbels). However, a) there is no verification Goebbels ever said this, and b) there is no indication anyone has ever used the term "Goebbels effect" to describe this as a communications technique." --Gaff (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also Big lie. --Gaff (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sole source that this concept exists seems to be from here "Repetition effect is derived from the Goebbels effect.". However, that one line does not establish WP:V.--Gaff (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't need a dictionary definition of Goebbels effect. --Gaff (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term Goebbels effect is actually somewhat widely used (just do a Google search), but it appears to be used to mean different things to different people. In some, it refers to the "Big lie" concept, in others it refers to the "The leader is the state" concept that was central to much of Goebbels' propaganda, and in yet others it has other meanings. Since no clear meaning can be selected, and since none of the usages are cited to any reliable sources (the present article is cited to a Chinese journal article in which the author appears to be coining his own version of Goebbels effect), I don't really think we have the valid basis of an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big lie, of which this is a fork, as well as being a plain violation of Godwin's law. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zing! :) --Gaff (talk) 02:10, 24 March 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, with kudos to Tokyogirl79 for the research. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Mutant Underwear

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

Article has been marked for notability and references for years (although the book title is well amusing I will admit) Wgolf (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took some digging (initially I couldn't find anything at all so they're pretty well hidden), but I did manage to find some reviews for the work. They're pretty much trades, but to date these are still considered to be usable for notability purposes. It also helps that the book has been given an award at the state level for Florida, the Sunshine State Young Readers Award. It's sort of a program and an award at the same time, but this award is only given to 15 books each year so that makes it fairly exclusive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Upon seeing this title all I could think is "gee really that's the title kids books have these days??" LOL Wgolf (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reaction. I have to admit that I'd have read it as a kid, based on the title alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK thanks Tokyogirl79:) google search also brings up plenty of appearances on school reading lists so librarians/teachers think its got something? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The First four serials of Star Jalsha

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

Non-article, this is original research and/or just a random collection of things. ~~Each~~Three of the four listed shows and the channel have their own article and there is no reference for the idea that these four shows as a group are somehow notable qua a group. Other than the lede, the article is nothing but a discription of the four shows.

DragonflySixtyseven previously deleted.

A merger to STAR Jalsha might be feasible, though this article is much larger. It could also be reduced to be an article about the fourth show. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic OR/PR. The only trivia/fact worth merging into Star Jalsha would have been that the first four serials on the channel "completed 100 episodes since launch", but that detail is not even confirmed by the cited, sources; I don't know if it happens to be true, but in any case this page need not exist as an article or a redirect. Abecedare (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR, the concept of the first four serials isn't made by any source. Any useful information count be merged to main article but please take some caution. The article creator has had issues with directly copying information from sources or at best minimal/too close paraphrasing. Ravensfire (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - creator blocked indefinitely for meatpuppetry on 26 March [3]--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-I have tagged tons of this guys pages for prods just now btw. Wgolf (talk) 16:08, 28 March 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. clear consensus. "What's the harm if kept" isn't an accepted argument here. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Middleton

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

Fails GNG and NBIO with only reliable source being the BBC article. KonveyorBelt 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 22 March 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) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 22 March 201reser 5 (UTC)

Keep Don't know what GNG/NBIO are, but what is the harm if this article is preserved? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, the acronyms refer to Wikipedia's General notability guideline and Notability (people). I suggest you read them carefully. They are the basis on which it will be decided whether the subject meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. "What is the harm?" is one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Voceditenore: In real life I know not to drive on the wrong side of the street without having to read reams text. Your miles may vary, but in my book any policies/guidelines that take weeks to fully understand cannot be effectively enforced.

Also, just because someone does not know all the acronyms used at Wikipeida by heart does not make them less worthy of an opinion. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, it takes some time to learn the rules/policies of the website, and I typically recommend that editors/nominators link to them in their comments so people can read up on what they're trying to say, but that being said, you not knowing them isn't really a good rationale or defense for your stance either. That's like threatening to sue someone, and when they ask you what law they broke, and you saying "Well, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't typically need to be in my daily life." I don't mean to be mean here, but you're they one who made the initial statement without the prior knowledge here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While other commenters have provided more compelling deletion reasons, I am inclined to reprimand User:Konveyor Belt for pulling WP:JUSTAPOLICY and hope he does better next time. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an absence of significant, in-depth biographical coverage in reliable sources. The current source is a three-sentence item in the BBC local news for Northampton. (Middleton comes from there.) The claim to have won a Kids' Choice Award is spurious and I have removed it from the article. The game he makes his own YouTube videos about, Minecraft, was nominated 3 times, but so far has not won, and in any case, the notability of the game does not confer notability on a person who makes videos about it. There is also an interview in The Big Issue here and a brief mention of his videos in an article about the game itself and several others who make videos about it on Tech Times here + some press-released based notices about his signing a deal with Maker Studios, a company which produces YouTube videos. Not enough for a stand-alone article in my view. What little verifiable information about him is available can be merged into Minecraft#Popular culture and social media. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lake of notability. Agree with suggestion to merge a brief mention into Minecraft#Popular culture and social media. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested above. The harm is that people will begin to treat Wikipedia as a web-host for putting everybody and everything trivial they know on our servers. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is more harm than good being done here. This will set a dangerous president. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coming via WT:VG is my quick addition of sources I see and absence of a vote. It has to be said though, that I have not heard of this person before in my personal YouTube experience. [4] from The Guardian regarding his standalone app. And is TubeFilter still considered unreliable? Their stats puts Middleton in 4th among gaming channels one time. [5] 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Agree with others saying delete. DangerousJXD (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possibly reliable sources offering significant coverage of him: The Guardian, StreamDaily, Common Sense Media, TubeFilter. Tezero (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt call the CSM one significant. It's a few sentences on a top ten list. It's literally 1/10th of an article about him ... Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 28 March 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. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tufail Ahmad

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. All references are by, not about the subject. bender235 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article does not currently have the requisite sources, but such sources exist. Here are two sources in fairly well-known news websites, that give him non-trivial coverage; 1 and 2. IMO, these meet the requirement set out in WP:BIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Notable person, might need better sourcing not deletion. -sarvajna (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do know that this article is not very strong at the moment, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. For me, the notability of the subject is clear from the fact that major newspapers and magazines have invited him to write regular columns. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 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 - dicdef. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shitburger

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

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide... Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history". This article us clearly and unequivocally about a slang term (it tells us precisely that in the lede), and accordingly does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The only source cited which seems to be discussing the word as a concept rather than providing an example of usage is a dictionary of slang. The article makes it clear that it isn't discussing a specific concept (i.e. a "hamburger of inferior quality"), but instead the multiple meanings of a term - burgers, persons, surfboards, an Indonesian rock band. And even ignoring the 'not a dictionary' policy, the article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG standards - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" A single dictionary definition and a collection of WP:OR examples of usage of the term wouldn't demonstrate notability anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. I believe I have made the case that while, yes, this is clearly slang terminology, it is more than that. In the spirit of my efforts to get feedback on the article, I welcome all comments and efforts to improve it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it 'more than' a slang term? What 'thing' (as opposed to 'term') is the article discussing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The surfboard and the punk band. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the article is about low-quality burgers, surfboards and bands? How exactly is that an appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, all respect, if I didn't believe it was suitable for Wikipedia, I wouldn't have written it. If I'm right, I'm right; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. How about we both let the process play out? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: to argue that this supersedes NOTDIC, I'm (correctly) required to specify why. Wiktionary, as the primary example, lists etymology, origin, definition(s), and brief examples. That's it. This article—IMHO—adds what wikt can't: uses in literature, popular culture and the news; and proper nouns. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you can't supersede policy by pretending that it doesn't exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Shit No social or historical significance has been shown, and that is required under WP:Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. Accordingly, shitcan it, or brace for a whole slew of further articles along similar lines.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to McDonalds as after all there burgers are (Redacted) (Redacted), Anyway joking aside We're not a dictionary so Delete it. . –Davey2010^Talk 05:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was asked to perhaps revisit this .... but unfortunately my position hasn't changed on this, IMHO the article is only serving as a dictionary and should be moved to WikiDictionary but meh that's my 2¢ on it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-covered in numerous secondary sources over sustained period of time. — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which secondary sources are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally hundreds of potential sources at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, we could easily take this article to WP:FA quality someday. Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't one do that with lots of words? For example: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Where is the social or historical significance?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly are these examples of the usage of the word 'shitberger' secondary sources anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Shitburger itself, already contains info on Origin/Literature/Popular culture/news, with cited sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if any word now qualifies for a Wikipedia article if it is contained in the vocabulary of James Franco. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, examples of the usage of a word are not in any shape or form secondary sources. I am frankly astonished that anyone who has been contributing to Wikipedia as long as you have could make such a fundamental error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, also quite easy to find sources that discuss the word and discuss the usage of the word, in those searches linked, above. Please remember to enjoy life and all it offers and spend some quality time with those that care about you, — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, I am sure the person closing this discussion will take note of the fact that you have entirely failed to produce the sources you claim to have located, and accordingly dismiss your '!keep' vote accordingly. And as for your remarks regarding my life, I suggest you mind your own fucking business (now run off and complain about the rude word I've just used...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being a (yes) stupid phrase that has, through sourced usage (not WP:OR) become part of American culture. We cannot ignore sources or usage per an animus toward the word or phrase itself. Being called a slang term does not denigrate its wide and multi-sourced usage. Examples of other similar slang terms within Wikipedia include fubar and clusterfuck, and no doubt there are many dozens more just as dis-liked. I am reminded of the denigrating word nigga (a word usually fine for one race to use but not another) and the also-denigrating words chink, spic, greaser, et all. Its the sourced usage that allows an article on such heinous terms, including usage... however disliked or inappropriate for family use. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and agreed. — Cirt (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My only concern is that curse words should not get a free pass just because they are curse words. Can someone give me an example of a curse word that does not warrant a Wikipedia article on account of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNCENSORED None get a "free pass" and are included through WP:N... though common usage and multiple sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still appreciate the example, if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am example of something that does not belong here? Sorry.... I'll leave that to the deletionists. I prefer improving weak topics so they may be kept. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Applying consistent standards - as laid down in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy - is not in any shape or form 'censorship'. As far as I can see, nobody has suggested that the article should be deleted because the term is in any way objectionable. It should be deleted because Wikipedia in not a dictionary, and because no evidence has been provided that the term is in any way notable. Instead, beyond a dictionary definition, we are provided with nothing but examples of usage. WE don't have an article on 'things described as being blue', 'or things called Bob', so why should 'things called shitburger' get an article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is noting more than the definition of the term and some assorted trivia on its usage. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I was asked by ATinySliver to re-comment/reconsider given the recent expansion of the article, I just want to say that I have seen the recent work on the article and I am sorry to say that from what I can tell I it still only contains the dictionary definition of the term and some some non-notable trivia on its usage, such as "someone said it on a talk show" or "someone used the term in a book". I therefore believe that WP:DICT still stands. Sorry P. S. Burton (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many negative terms that merit articles herein though being defined and being sourced as having wide usage. Yes, Wikipeida is not a dictionary... but it is a place where readers expect to find how certain terms have become part of our culture, and in what manner. Indeed WP:NOTDIC specifically instructs "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source which discusses this 'wide usage' in depth, or is this just original research based on Google? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andy, being able to read what the multiple sources citing the article share does not make a reader's ability or my own "original research". Contrarily, it most specifically does not, as citing article is exactly what is expected per policy and guidelines. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's say your ~~plan~~ succeeds. What's next, shit? Fuck? Asshole? Nigga? Grump?

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but If memory serves AndyTheGrump has attempted in the past to delete one or two articles that do not involve any curse words or obscenities. So, I suspect that his plan would be to continue being impartial in that regard. Fuck yeah.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nothing in my deletion rationale in any way relates to the fact that the word in question is a (mild by today's standards) obscenity. Get a clue. Or a life. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the wake of some research, I find no evidence that you are attacking this or any other term, so I withdraw and apologize for the suggestion of any "plan". In my defense, your propensity toward vehement argument with anyone who disagrees with you gave me that impression.

So, back to the subject: I would respectfully ask anyone registering a delete per NOTDIC read its subsection When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. I have zero doubt that Shitburger does indeed "go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term" (note the "or", as opposed to "and", which would be a different animal). This policy demands that this article be kept, even absent likely future improvement. Given their structural similarities, deleting this article would require the same be done for shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits. ("And tits doesn't even belong on the list!!") —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Now, would you please list, from amongst those cited in the article, which sources discuss the "social or historical significance of the term" - I can see no evidence of this. Instead, the article cites a three-word definition in the Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English ("poor-quality food"), and a succession of examples of usage of the term for a disparate array of things and concepts. There is no sourced discussion on its significance at all as far as I can see - and that is required to demonstrate the notability of the subject. As I stated in my deletion rationale above, I consider that even without WP:NOTDICTIONARY the article would fail to pass the GNG, since evidence of in-depth discussion of the topic (which is the term 'shitburger', rather than 'random things given the name shitburger') in multiple WP:RS sources has not been provided. As for other articles, I'm sure you've seen WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I'm not going to get drawn into an off-topic debate about other articles, beyond pointing out that people have written books about 'fuck' [6] and 'shit' [7], and it takes little effort to find social commentary on the significance of the terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Ah—sarcasm gives you indigestion. Okay.

First, your assertion that the article is allowed only to pass GNG as a term is a straw man, so I'll dispatch that. Second, its use as a term in literature and in popular culture as meticulously referenced satisfies GNG anyway. Third, you've missed the meaning of "in-depth": the passage "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" refers to the discussion here, on Wikipedia, as opposed to the sources, where there is no such requirement. Fourth, James Franco. (Edit: Fifth, Stephen Colbert. Sixth, Mark Halperin. Seventh, Matt Rhoades. Eighth, I "know full well" no such thing.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dismiss it if you like, I'm sure whoever closes this discussion will do so on the basis of policy, and not because you don't understand the GNG, or the meaning of the phrase 'straw man'.'When you state that the article is about a term, and write an article consisting of nothing beyond usages of the term, that is what the subject is - and per GNG, you have do provide secondary sources giving in-depth discussion of the topic, no matter how many policies you misrepresent, how many guidelines you misapply, how many irrelevant stock phrases you churn out, and how many utterly irrelevant articles you link. Either provide the required evidence from secondary sources that the term 'shitburger' meets Wikipedia notability guidelines and isn't subject to WP:NOTDICTIONARY, or accept that the article be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let the hatred flow within you. I believe in the data needed to save this article. You believe in the data needed to kill it. Time to let the community decide. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatred has precisely nothing to do with it. And stop pretending to have a rational argument for keeping this self-defining 'article' - you know full well there aren't the secondary sources to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article seems to be supported by uses of the word rather than discussion of it. I haven't done the research to find out if that's all there is, but I don't think that sort of thing is enough to establish notability. ~~I also think the above argument is going nowhere fast and that its participants need to calm down.~~ ekips39 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Wait, no, it's been inactive for several hours. I'll be quiet now. ekips39 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to maintain a sense of humor about this. It's been quite the challenge ...

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I have asked the delete voters to revisit the encyclopedia article in the wake of continuing improvements thereto. I believe I am so entitled by virtue of the arguments to which the keep voters have been subjected herein. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the supposed improvements have addressed the core issue - the lack of evidence of significant discussion of the subject matter of the article in secondary sources. The article still consists of nothing but a dictionary definition, and primary-source examples of usage. It will be self-evident to the closer that by a simple inspection of the 'Major differences' section in WP:NOTDIC that this article clearly and unequivocally falls into the 'Wiktionary' rather than 'Wikipedia' definition. It is about a term rather than a thing - the things discussed (poor-quality food, surfboards, a band, a term of abuse etc) are separate subjects for an encyclopaedia, and if they met Wikipedia notability guidelines - which has of course not been demonstrated - they would have separate articles, with 'shitberger' being nothing but a disambiguation page. Your apparent inability to understand this simple distinction I find frankly surprising, but it is policy - and as long as it remains policy, this article is simply non-compliant: and accordingly, the closer has no choice but to close this as 'delete'. If you wish WP:NOTDICT policy to be revised, or superseded, argue your case in the appropriate place. 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

With apologies to the late Johnny Carson, you are wrong, WORDISSUBJECT-breath.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Game Change has to do with it. I agree with AndyTheGrump, but would add that you probably shouldn't try to edit policy if the policy change might affect the shitburger article. It doesn't matter what you say at the policy page, or when you say it, or what your motives are; you can get in trouble for editing policy pages if there's a particular article you have in mind ---- and conversely any edit to a policy page will often be opposed unless you can give a real-life problem it would solve at Wikipedia. Kind of catch-22, I suppose. It's bitten me in the ass, so be careful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfies "significant discussion". Meantime, I wouldn't edit a policy page if you threatened to force-feed me a shitburger.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That example regarding Rhoades is a bit of a shitburger. Suppose he put the problems into two piles labelled serious and mild. Should we then change those disambiguation pages into articles?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is a bit of a shitburger. (Sorry.

) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be notable from looking at the refs, but that topic, what the... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have clicked through the standard "find sources" links, investigated the webpages revealed therein, and found nothing but uses of the word, no discussion of it (such as this); that is, except for pages such as this that discuss it a little but are blogs, and this which is some kind of dictionary site. I even found this, which Google Translate revealed to be only brief uses. I was able to access all the news results but [link removed due to hitting the link blacklist]. I have also re-read the article after the improvements, and I still believe that the refs are either mere uses of the word or things that happen to be named shitburger. The variety of meanings this word can have, combined with the fact that no one has addressed the topic directly as required by WP:GNG (unlike the other swear words listed above, which either have sources discussing the words or are disambiguation pages or pointers to Wiktionary), lead me to the unfortunate conclusion that the topic of "shitburgers" in general is not notable -- though the word is well-known --, and therefore we should delete this article. ekips39 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This clearly doesn't fall into the class of articles described at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If all it takes to make an encyclopedia article about a word is a bunch of discriminated definitions illustrated with examples of usage, then every entry in the Oxford English Dictionary is automatically an encyclopedia article. Deor (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I'd like to read encyclopedic information about this subject, there really doesn't seem to be a great deal of it. We expect encyclopedic entries to define terms more than give examples of usage. The subject seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. Sorry and maybe if more in-depth sources can be found which discuss the subject then this can be revisited in the future via undeletion. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall seeing a better example of how Wikipedia suffers under strict, by-the-book adherence to policy. This is an encyclopedia article, and a damned good one, and its (likely) loss saddens me ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I'd be convinced if there was extensive discussion of the word's place and usage in contemporary society, along the lines of the article Fuck, but apart from a brief section at the top this just seems to be a laundry list of incidences of its use. With a brief etymology, this really belongs at Wiktionary, not here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:58, 31 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Ramírez Reyes "El Comodín"

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

I was planning on taking this for Speedy Deletion originally. But I think making one of these was the better idea. The sources it provides are either from flickr pages that don't seem to work, Amazon, imdb, or ones that don't exactly add anything to the article. While the subject does seem to have done things that may be noteworthy, there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources to back them up. GamerPro64 20:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "flickr refs" are scans of newspaper articles. They should be fixed to cite the newspaper directly, but otherwise are perfectly valid refs (and mostly quite good sources) - there is no requirement that the source be online. They alone are sufficient to establish notability, but Ramirez Reyes also passes Wp:NACTOR #1 as he has had major roles in multiple notable TV shows. Pinging @Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep - The newspaper articles shown through "Flickr" are very reputable sources and many references to other highly respectable newspapers and TV channels have been added: note newspaper "La Opinión" as well as TV Channels Cine Latino and TV.COM. --Jackietorres (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the newspaper pages used as references make this pass WP:GNG. Though I suggest a rename to Mario Ramírez Reyes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on renaming after the AfD closed. Doing it while it's ongoing just creates extra work for the closer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. U guys pretty much have said , what I was going to say about this, he passes Wp:GNG and the one Thaddeus notes, also I agree we should rename after this closes , sorry about that.Oo7565 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 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. Since the relist after DRV consensus has clearly moved towards deletion. Michig (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robey Reed

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

There's no indication that he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists. There are passing mentions and results like placing at the U.S. Armed Forces Far Eastern Invitational, but these aren't enough to meet GNG or WP:MANOTE. Notability is not shown by rank or by organizational membership.Mdtemp (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepFounding member of the United States Judo Association, the subject of multiple independent articles, overall Air Force Training Command Judo Champion and more.^[1] [8] He also competed in 13 national championships by 1970. [9]

passes MANOTE by either being (1) Subject of an independent article/documentary, (2) Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors, (3) Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). The high ranking rationale that you stated for deletion for a number of them applies when ... "Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art); perhaps also avoid even mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students." Judo has hundred of thousand practitioners.CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being Air Force Training Command champion is hardly competing at the highest level. Where are his national and world placings? The BB magazine listings are passing mentions/results. Apparently you believe every early American judoka is automatically notable.Mdtemp (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military competitions for Judo are notable especially when that is how Judo came to America. A founding member of a significant organization, and is a repeated medalist. There does exist SOME passing mention in articles but there is also indepedent articles. Please look at ALL the sources.CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So where are his placings at JudoInside? Thousands of judoka results and he isn't even listed.Mdtemp (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US National Team in 1961 and founder of the USJA. ^[2] Judo info is also incomplete. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a passing mention that said he was on a team that competed at the AAU National Team championships. That's not the same at all as being on the U.S. national team.

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFounder of Seihoku-Ryu Karate Organization and holds a 7th degree black belt in karate. ^[3]

He passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rank does not show notability and there's no supporting evidence that he competed as an individual at the highest level such as the Olympics or World Championships. There's not even any indication he ever individually placed at a single national championship--that is, one open to all competitors. Military competitions are not at the same level. Passing mentions and competition results are insufficient to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentBeing a founding member of a major Judo organization defers notability. A high level competitor defers notability. Military competitions are actually at a higher level at this point in history. Being an African American who competed and was able to achieve this at the time shows notability. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of things you claim is supported by any policies or evidence. Claiming a military event is at a higher level than the actual world championships is just wrong. Do you understand that "defers" means delays? Papaursa (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passes 1 and 4 of WP:MANOTE Passes 1 and 4 Subject of an independent article/documentary and

Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)

Delete Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG, or WP:MANOTE. Military events are not the same as open competitions and to say they are even higher than world championships is bull. Rank is irrelevant for MA notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentCofounder of the United States Judo Association and high rank shows notability! CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:18, 3 March 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 // 13:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG. USAF champ, Competed in the Team Nations. Co Founder of a major organization with thousands of members. 24.103.234.74 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the independent sources that you believe give significant coverage of this individual. The sources listed previously have been passing mentions or routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:12, 22 March 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, Sandstein 20:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was closed as "no consensus" but is now relisted per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 10. Sandstein 20:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my detailed comment and deconstruction of the sources at the DRV: [10]. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of sources at DRV, the three "major" sources and WP:GNG, one source isn't about the subject merely the person demonstrating certain moves, one is not independant of the subject and despite being half a page a good portion of that is not covering the subject anyway, the final appears to be a self-published book so fails to be a reliable source. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commenthe is listed as a world class competitor in one of the articles, as well as one of "the first 6 degree black belts" in America. ^[1]CrazyAces489 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned in many previous discussions that rank is not an indicator of martial arts notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it can confer GNG and being the first in something is an indicator of notability, so that is your OPINION. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:GNG? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and the discussion at the DRV. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and MANOTE. Armed forces competitions aren't the huge deal the author seems to think they are. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 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 Shapeshifters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity (Shapeshifters song)

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

Song longed marked for notability. It could either be redirected or merged into Now That's What I Call Music! 64 (UK series) or The Shapeshifters. Wgolf (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Shapeshifters. Chart info already listed there; nothing else of note to merge. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Star. I'm not finding significant coverage for the song to warrant a standalone article, but it charted and it's discussed within the band's article, so a redirect is reasonable. Gongshow talk 01:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USched

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

no references for notability, and essentially a manual page , not a WP article DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was edited to included references to the official project repository page, including indication of milestones, roadmaps, licenses and portability. An History section was included that briefly (but will be extended in a near future) describe the history of the project. Also all technical details were moved into a Technical Details section. Threadp 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In response to Threadp's statement on future edits, none of those add to the project's notability. This seems to be WP:PROMO ― Padenton |☎ 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for this. After reading all the notability requirements, it's now clear that this project lacks of reliable secondary sources. Currently it's only being used for testing purposes and too young to have some material from other sources. I'll request an undelete in the future when some strong references can be included. Threadp 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, and my searches, and article's author, subject lacks substantial coverage from reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, the article's author, and the fact that I was unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Shanata (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Davis

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

WP:TOOSOON for this WP:ACTORBIO, no significant/notable roles. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-too soon article. Wgolf (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-for same reasons above. Also doesn't appear to be anything more than a couple of episodes, can't be that notable.Cmr08 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Way toosoon. –Davey2010^Talk 05:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Bhatara

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POL. Municipal councilors have no inherent notability. Jbh (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's analysis. Also sounds promotional and was created by a SPA account. Cavarrone 04:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. as nominator says no inherent notability of local councillors. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 28 March 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) 08:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ararat Osipian

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

Young economist who is barely notable. Obvious case of WP:AUTOBIO. bender235 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-autobio. (And looks like someone deleted a prod someone put up last year for it) Wgolf (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has a worthy cause, but he doesn't pass WP:PROF and I'm not convinced that the media coverage is enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 28 March 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. There seems to be consensus. No barrier to writing an actual article if it does start service DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Airways

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

This article has had a troubled past. It was originally created by now-blocked user User:Zurich00swiss before it was deleted and has now been recreated by an obvious sock of that user User:Ing.airport. That aside, it was previously a copyright violation of [11] which named it Albanian Airlines, for which we have an existing article. But it does now seem that this company is a different one. However, all I can find about it is its webite which appears to be a place-holder, and a press release reproduced here. It seems the content being reported as fact in the article is merely aspirational and there is no evidence that it is actually up and running. Lack of confirmation suggests lack of notability. Therefore I propose deletion on the grounds of notability and that the content is either unreliable or false. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No solid evidence that it is going to start operations; not notable. Quityergreeting (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – is valid via 1) WP:G5 (if proved), 2) purely promotional since the company appears not to exist yet.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 22 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Hossain

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

Delete. Contested prod. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). The subject of the article has not received sufficient coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Edcolins (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP: MUSICBIO LibStar (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 March 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 per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huzaifa Mazhar

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

There are no valid references for anything here. Facebook and a free website created by the subject don't prove anything. This is a teenage boy who has repeatedly created this same exact article (Huzaifa Mazhar. and Huzaifa Mazhar (HM)) to promote himself. Helpsome (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom Wgolf (talk) 23:56, 21 March 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 Herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Whether to merge at Herpes zoster ophthalmicus or at Ophthalmic zoster can be hashed out on the talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmic zoster

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

Superseded by Herpes_zoster_ophthalmicus Jkokavec (talk) 14:22, 21 March 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 March 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge What has happened here? Why wasn't the original article updated? It seems that Jkokavec has created a new article covering the same topic but using a different name. Surely the Herpes zoster ophthalmicus article should be merged to the original Ophthalmic zoster as an update, then that content moved to the "Herpes zoster ophthalmicus" article, leaving "Ophthalmic zoster" as a redirect. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move Herpes_zoster_ophthalmicus to it - Elsewhere we have favored common names, rather than latin names or more complicated names. I favor moving the more developed, more complicatedly-named article to the simple, less-developled article, and ultimately redirecting to it. BakerStMD T|C 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not clear on why there was a second separate article created, but clearly both terms are used. Herpes zoster ophthalmicus does seem to be the more common term (inaccurate as google hit counts can be, 157,000 vs 14,000 is probably significant), but I have no strong opinion on which should be the main title. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Consolidate the info, merge the histories. If someone wants info on this topic a search will lead them to the correct, merged article. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 21:50, 28 March 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hangover (book)

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

Non-notable book - fails to meet the requirements of WP:BK. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a quick search for sources but Google isn't bring up anything for me. Artw (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I am also drawing a blank on this one. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book, non-notable author. ~~Probably vanity published,~~ probably COI on part of article creator. Keri (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be vanity published. It looks like it's put out by Missing Link Press and they don't appear to charge authors anything for publishing, although they do print in extremely limited quantities. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find it in WorldCat or the Library of Congress catalog, so highly unlikely to meet WP:BKTS. Altamel (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I performed a search using several different key words (book title, part of author's name, full author name) but really couldn't find anything to show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. I can't even find this on the main merchant sites and the absence of a listing on a merchant site doesn't mean that a book cannot be notable, it is usually fairly telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, google brings up nothing useful, has been previously nominated for delete, result was speedy delete, reason may not have been technically correct(?) but ..... maybe another helpful admin can oblige? (as a sidepoint, the author has previously removed deletion notices, are there any wikieditors who can take them under their wing??:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 24 March 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) 08:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2015-2016

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

This is a fork of Miss Universe 2015, which was deleted (redirected) after an earlier AfD, and thus eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G4. If the authors of this article believe that it's finally time for Miss Universe 2015 to be created, this isn't the way to go about it. Alakzi (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Alakzi (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Alakzi (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a recreation of Miss Universe 2015 under an implausible title. Still no date. Still no venue. Editor consensus at AfD was that the 2015 event should not get an article yet. Not enough has changed since then. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The recreation of this article is to sabotage what was decided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe 2015 (2nd nomination). --Jean70000 (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Pointless atm. –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 28 March 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. Even when we remove the -puppeting, there seems to be a clear consensus here to get rid of the article. Two keep objections are raised, one that there "should" be sources which isn't the same as finding and presenting those sources, and one that obviously has a different view of the quality of the sources to everyone else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Marcano

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

I am just putting this AfD in place so that I can address an editor's concern raised on my talk page. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment. I believe the editor requesting deletion is mistaken- he claims it's a disparaging article about himself, but it appears to be a relatively NPOV article about another person with the same name. I can't really tell if the subject is notable enough to merit an article, but the editor's objections don't seem to be relevant to this AfD. One fix I suggested would be to make a new article for Ray Marcano (boxer) but, as the editor asserts he's NOT notable[12], an alternative might be to rename the existing one to Ray Marcano (journalist) possibly with redirect from Ray Marcano. --Robin Thayler (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think someone would believe an article about someone with the same name but completely different nationality and profession would be about them. In any case, the user has reaffirmed that the article is in fact about him, the journalist (assuming he is who he says he is). ansh 666 19:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The journalist about whom you were publishing article says that you are posting lies and incorrect information, and that you do not want to delete this page!!!!! Shame on you!!!~~--Robokop91 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Robokop91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^{Struck. Personal attacks. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete If the real life person thinks that they aren't notable, then delete it. Clubjustin3 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the LP thinks is inconsequential. As two-time Pulitzer Prize juror, there should be sources available. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you the burden of proof lies in you to find the sources. "There should be sources" is literally an example provided at WP:MUST as an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Also, per WP:ANYBIO winning an award is deemed a metric of notability. Notability is not WP:INHERENT if you're only associated with something like the Pulitizer Prize other than winning it. Mkdw ^talk 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what the heck, page was moved to Talk:Ray Marcano page deleted, with the actual talk page still at Talk:Ray Marcano. I've reverted a page blanking and marked the current redirect G6 to be moved back. ansh 666 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page moved back. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also pointed User:Rmarcano to WP:BLPHELP, I don't know if ORTS will do anything though. ansh 666 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Ansh666: ORTS? McDonald of Kindness (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, OTRS. Finger must have slipped. ansh 666 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several users have been trying desperately to get this page deleted, but neither of them qualifies as the sole author of the page so they can't get it speedied - and of course we have no idea who they really are anyhow. However, their wishes are not determinative here. I believe the article can and should be deleted as non-notable. I don't see what being a "Pulitzer Prize juror" has to do with notability; if he had WON a Pulitzer that would be a different story. The claim that he "led" the effort to get Dale Earnhart's autopsy release is not supported by the source [13], which suggests that he and his group supported the effort by the Orlando Sentinel. The claim to being a Fulbright Fellow is not supported by the link [14] and would not confer automatic notability anyhow. Google search does not turn up any additional evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link in the article is the wrong page. This one shows that Marcano received a Fulbright Specialist Grant in 2013. I agree not enough to confirm automatic notability. --Stfg (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably missing something here (what's new?), but not knowing anything about boxers (of either sort) I can't see where a Columbian boxer comes into the picture. Also, I cannot see why the original author (no other edits, no user page) is supposed to have links to porn. Again, I fail to see what is disparaging about the page (unless he has really WON a Pulitzer). Who judges the Pulitzer, anyway? Peridon (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Protected I've semi-protected the article for three days. Any admin feel free to extend this or unprotect it. Peridon (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In conducting a WP:BEFORE search, there seem to be very few articles about the journalist. Certainly nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. It's mostly social media hits with other people mixed in with the same name. If this page was given to me on OTRS or AFC, I would have recommended it for deletion or not passed it respectively. The dynamic of the editor claiming to be the individual doesn't really weigh into my decision. Mkdw ^talk 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kindly delete this page because Ray Marcano don't want his information on wikipedia.If the person don't want his bio on wiki.So,it must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahafarooqui (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 March 2015‎ (UTC) — Tahafarooqui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Confirmed sock (SPI). Mkdw ^talk 05:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-admins can't tell whether the Rmarcano account is the article subject or somebody else, and I have suspicions because a high-level journalist would be unlikely to confuse notability and notoriety as this user has done. But it's probably academic, since notability seems not to have been established. I agree 100% with Mkdw. --Stfg (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could just be a bit of fashion - since the rise of hiphop (where it seems almost obligatory for a performer to have a record (police, not CD) with something more than a parking ticket on it), the use of 'notoriety' by people who don't value the nuances of the English language has increased as they mistake it for 'fame'. Me, I blame the teachers... ;-) Peridon (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But I doubt that the subject of this article belongs in category people who don't value the nuances of the English language. --Stfg (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because a high-level journalist would be unlikely to confuse notability and notoriety as this user has done.Yes This is a main reason . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxdevelopers (talk • contribs) 15:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Foxdevelopers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Confirmed sock (SPI). Stickee (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are concerns that canvassing may be involved in this AFD. Aside from attracting a relatively high level of activity, there are a number of seeming SPA editors involved both here and at the article. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he do not want his page.please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwansiddiqui98 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC) — Rizwansiddiqui98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: clear sock puppetry and disruption. Mkdw ^talk 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he do not want his page.delete this article, he is an honest man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshi777 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) — Arshi777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: Clear sock puppetry and disruption. Mkdw ^talk 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found some coverage not used in the article in the Associated Press and Englewood Independent [15] [16]. Stickee (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stickee, I think you have a very liberal sense of "significant". I've noticed on other AFDs you've cited two or three sources as presumably meeting GNG/WP:SIGCOV even if they merely mention in passing the individual. Mkdw ^talk 18:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mkdw, both of the articles I've given are solely about the subject of the AfD, not merely "in passing". Stickee (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AP archive has 47 words. To put it in perspective, my initial reply to you above has 44 words if you count the signature. Not exactly what I would determine in depth or significant coverage. Mkdw ^talk 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources in the article (in its various incarnations) nor what has been offered here rises to the level of significant coverage of the subject. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:44, 18 March 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 // 06:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the part about him being head of the Society of Professional Journalists into that article, but otherwise delete. Quityergreeting (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Society of Professional Journalists: Some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to establish notability under WP:BASIC, and subject doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST either. Esquivalience ^t 00:41, 22 March 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. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden Box Open

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

Defunct amateur boxing competition with no significant independent coverage. The references given are either about it being televised sometime or a list of results. I found nothing that shows this competition was notable for any reason.Mdtemp (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original notability tag was removed with the claim that this was a major European amateur event and sources were added. Unfortunately those sources did not live up to promise. I would like to hold off voting to see if that editor can supply more convincing coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A major event. J 1982 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any proof of that?Mdtemp (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a major/notable boxing event.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG and no indication that this was a major boxing event. Papaursa (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Svensk mediedatabas, here referencing SVT, is an independent source (also, I see no point of being so strict with the source being independent when it's no political/economic/philosophical/religious controversial statement). J 1982 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 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 // 06:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A little surprised Coffee relisted this since the only keep !vote in a 4 to 1 failed to even provide a valid policy based rationale. See arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Additionally, the sources provided, where two of them are barely even sources to speak of, one is simply a pie chart, do not provide a strong basis for WP:GNG and fall closer to run of the mill. Lastly, the event is defunct so it's coverage is at its maximum and therefore WP:LASTING comes into play. Mkdw ^talk 08:01, 21 March 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. Speedy Delete per CSD:G4. No substantial updates to the article since the previous deletion. Nakon 04:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Succar

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

Not notable. No awards or prizes cited. Seems like a hard-working actor, but that's about it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East and West of Tasmania: Changes in climate, geology and vegetation

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

Original research. No secondary or otherwise reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is a school kid's project. Look at the talk page of this AfD where the article creator admits this. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a university kid, actually, but still, Wikipedia is not the place to host this kind of thing. Frickeg (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as WP:NOTESSAY. But if anyone finds something useful to be added to, say, Flora and fauna of Tasmania, go ahead. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also see Variation of Tasmanian vegetation from East to West, which is better written and sourced, although also something of an essay.--Grahame (talk) 11:17, 27 March 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. Michig (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Solomon (author)

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

Page that has basically been a auto bio that has stuck around for over 8 years! And considering the only edits are by publishers also...no notability either. Wgolf (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete he published one book, with a small publishing house, Red Ribbon Press [17], in the U.K. findable on Amazon [18]. Here I revise one of the poems posted on Amazon.com:

When I came home from another

disastrous day at the office,

and found an AFD re: an erotic poet,

when I least expected it,

you unbuttoned your blouse for me,

removed your clothing slowly,

and my searching showed me no sources

and so iVoted delete

oh, so quickly!E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no claim of notability that would pass WP:WRITER, and cites exactly no reliable source coverage. Simply being able to confirm that a person exists is not a notability freebie on Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dang the fact that this page has survived since 2006....!Wgolf (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, our inclusion and content standards — what counted as a valid notability claim in the first place, how much sourcing had to be provided, etc. — were very different in 2006 than they are now. Plus even if an article does objectively fail our standards, somebody has to notice it before anything can be done about it. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 24 March 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. Michig (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touristlink

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

Does not wiki:GNG criteria Shrikanthv (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Good level of coverage online from WP:RS. There was initially a serious COI issue, but this has been cleaned up. Employees of the company would be well advised to quit editing the page, however. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can live with an employer tidying the article up or editing it from time to time .... But as seen here [19] there only purpose here is to promote there company and if Kept they'll only return and no doubt add all the crap that's been wiped so far, So will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the community want this promotional shit to stay than who am I to get in the way of that!, In the end this'll get kept so may aswell go with the flow!. –Davey2010^Talk 05:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010: The article presently does not have a promotional tone, and is written in an encyclopedic style. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point - The article was created simply to promote the company, I completely understand there's sources which help its notability but there main aim wasn't to create a notable article but to just ignore policies and create one they're affiliated with, Anyway I've said my peace and we all have different views on these things (I guess the world would be boring if we all agreed on everything :), Thanks). –Davey2010^Talk 07:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG and best is only upcoming firm and new social network .Further none of the references this this ,this ,this and none of the other references establish notability and are not WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - kindly check the following link Hindustan Times Article IndiaTimes Article Nagpur Today Article Times Of India humanipo.com You can find more references at Touristlink Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakkailashgupta (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Deepakkailashgupta is not only associated with TouristLink but he's also the articles creator. –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will make sure that the deleted content will not be added again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakkailashgupta (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable and unbiased in present form. Mr RD 15:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE ins't a valid reason for keeping an article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 14 March 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 // 00:56, 14 March 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) 04:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Source examples include:

TouristLink.com: A social travel platform. Money Control. (A CNBC affilate).
New Social Network Connects Travelers with Destinations, Experts. Mashable. (A news website)
How to travel solo, backpack and have fun. Hindustan Times.
Nagpur travel Survey: Tourists prefer local stay over resorts, water parks. Nagpur Today.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 21 March 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 & rename to Aviation Museum of New Hampshire. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 06:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up Arxiloxos, Northamerica1000, DavidWBrooks, I've moved it but haven't changed the content, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 06:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Aviation Historical Society

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

Specialist state organization group running a trivially small museum--no references for notability DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, but size of museum does not seem like an issue to me.Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle as Aviation Museum of New Hampshire, refocusing the article on the museum rather than the organization. The museum (which has expanded) has received substantial coverage in reliable sources such as the Boston Globe [20], The Washington Post [21], and New Hampshire papers [22][23][24]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Aviation Museum of New Hampshire, which meets WP:GNG as per sources listed above by Arxiloxos. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Aviation Museum of New Hampshire seems like the right approach - and I'm the guy who created this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above. Notability doesn't really seem to be an issue here, just a misguided title. Quityergreeting (talk) 20:45, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Louise Avery

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

I see no awards. . Her book is in only two libraries a/c to worldcat DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the one source is reliable and independent, it is just one, GNG requires multiple. She is an academic, but nothing in the sources indicates that she comes anywhere near passing any notability requirement for an academic. The source says she is "award winning" but does not name the award, so we cannot at present analyze how important her award may be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The one thing that gave me doubt was that she got David Cameron to write a foreword for her, probably while Leader of the Opposiiton. My search on a UK academic library catalogue site (COPAC) indicated that only British Library had taken a copy (and it takes everything), and not the other 4 copyright libraries (which are selective). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a review here: https://www.senmagazine.co.uk/articles/articles/senarticles/a-picture-of-autism-the-story-of-a-creative-project-for-young-artists-with-autism ; also a piece about her work with special needs children here: http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/culture/videos-podcasts-galleries/flash-inspiration ; a piece about an exhibition she curated: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3731626.print/ (one of a few, but all pretty much the same). It doesn't amount to much, but it's something. For Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, to be booting out an article on someone involved with outsider art strikes me as regrettably ironic. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:TOOSOON. Kudos to User:Andreas Philopater for turning up 3 sources. (better than my search had done) http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3731626.print is about 2008 exhibit curated by Avery that got some press. A foundation was established in memory of her mother, and that foundation works with children on the autism spectrum using art. there was a 2010 article about this work, http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/culture/videos-podcasts-galleries/flash-inspiration, and also an an essay by Avery about this work. https://www.senmagazine.co.uk/articles/articles/senarticles/a-picture-of-autism-the-story-of-a-creative-project-for-young-artists-with-autism But this does not seem to me to suffice to make Avery a notable curator or art historian. Althoug, perhaps whe will become notable as her career continues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 22 March 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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kent family of Bawnard

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

Related to Wikipedia Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jcpag2012, hope you're well. I can see how there might have been an issue with this page when it was first being written and was just a compilation of information from other pages (not that there's anything wrong with that either) but now it has been fleshed out and contains much history that's new to wikipedia and not known to a wide audience. I take it that what the problem was, and that it wasn't that the page was about a family (Gambino crime family,Kennedy family)? Is it okay to remove the header thing now? (I'm still learning the etiquette), Thanks, D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunmanus (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is incomplete. It has not been added to Ireland or Politician -related discussions. Also no reason has been given for the nomination. Snappy (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Kents are notable per WP:Politician, whether they should have a group article or individual ones, I'm nor sure. Snappy (talk) 11:37, 21 March 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. Procedural close - No reason for deletion at all - I have no objections to this being renominated or moved to Draft. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom Crisis

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

Undated Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I am the article's author, I will not make a !vote here. But nevertheless, have you read our notability guidelines, as well as precedents? Consensus has determined that anime that air on television are, for the most part, inherently notable. I apologize if the article was short when it was created; at the time of creation, there wasn't much info out on the anime (it had only been announced today, at the AnimeJapan event) and all we had to go by were unreliable FC2 posts and the show's website. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcpag2012: The show now has received coverage from Anime News Network, which is considered to be a reliable source, and is arguably the most frequently used source by the anime WikiProject. Also, please elaborate on your nomination rationale: "Undated"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on the notion that anime airing on Tv are inherently notable. For a start and in this case, it has only just been announced, and reporting on press releases and announcements is not considered proof of notability. I'm rather surprised that an experienced editor would create such a short stub immediately after an announcement when next to nothing is known about the series and it's not an adaptation. This is a case of an article being made way too early just for the sake of one existing, and I see no reason for it to exist right now. In the future, when something more is known than the key visual and a couple of names then yes, it may well prove to be notable. A few hours after a brief announcement is not that time.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SephyTheThird: Well I have seen some of our editors create articles on anime the day they're announced. Juhachi has done so a few times, for example, and I had previously created articles on shows the day they were announced (notably Space Dandy and Shirobako). As for creating the article, yeah it probably was a bit premature, but I was thinking we probably have enough content to make even a smalls stub. And actually, that's the problem. The show is original, so inherently there won't be lots over coverage and info immediately. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we don't like it when people make articles for manga that are actually running at the time with published volumes because of unproven notability, so why should we allow them for anime? Anime aren't suddenly more notable and worthy of articles than manga, and there tends to be more information available for those manga. It's rather hypocritical to give anime a free reign. The fact that it happens doesn't make it right. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically (and this is coming from nearly 9 years on Wikipedia), creating articles on anime, even when they have very little information to them, have been allowed based on WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media because presumably, they'll eventually have enough information to make them notable anyway, so deleting them now only to recreate them in the future is pointless. I'm not denying that this article is clearly underdeveloped, and I can agree that it may have been too early to create it, but more likely than not, this topic will have an article sometime in the near future that clearly establishes notability. The reason why this is not the case for manga is because, typically, a manga doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BK, and WP:OUTCOMES#Literature doesn't apply to new, relatively unknown manga/novels.--十八 08:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The essay offers a rather basic view that doesn't account for the difference between an announcement and a show actually airing. The show doesn't even have an estimate for when it's due, just that it's in development, and presuming it will become notable seems does not only miss the point of the GNG, but also makes large assumption the article will be developed in the future - it can be difficult enough to do that with new shows that are notable. While I appreciate your view, I think the two are at odds, using an essay to justify keeping anime articles while using an actual guideline to justify deleting manga articles still comes off as hypocritical. However, even accepting your first point, this specific article really shouldn't exist at this time. I've got nothing against stubs themselves, but if all you can write is that something was announced, it's not a suitable topic for an article, regardless of it being a TV anime or not. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against userfying the article or moving it to the draft space for the time being until information related to its production and/or air date have been announced, and in the future, perhaps this can be the standard that we set the bar at. I cannot deny that you make a good point about the article not existing at this early stage in its development.--十八 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article might be premature, but so is this AfD. I personally would have waited for a bit more information, but there is enough to justify a short article at this stage. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace per Juhachi, this might become notable but for now more work is needed on the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iron-Platinum Nanoparticles

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

Irrelevant Jc pag 2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Improper (i.e., there isn't one) AfD rationale. Pax 08:39, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Marciano

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

Non-notable kickboxer. He fails to meet WP:KICK since he never fought for a major title and was never ranked in the top 10. Fighting and losing to some former and future champions is WP:NOTINHERITED. Of the article's 6 sources, none count towards GNG--4 are from IMDB, 1 doesn't even mention his name, and the other is a passing mention for fighting on the undercard of an upcoming fight card.Mdtemp (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB are in their own category and not particularly reliable. The two directly about Joe are essentially the same in a different format. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:KICK. Fighting people on the way up or down does not make someone particularly noteworthy.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no significant coverage to indicate he meets WP:GNG. There's also no evidence he meets any notability criteria for boxers (WP:NBOX) or kickboxers (WP:KICK). Papaursa (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep the [25] article is strong in my opinion.CrazyAces489 (talk)

Please see WP:RS/IMDB.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:43, 18 March 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 // 01:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, the individual does not meet the guidelines specified in WP:KICK and does not have enough WP:SIGCOV to be kept under our general notability guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 08:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^Delete: Fails to meet GNG or MANOTE. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 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. Michig (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Kuzminskaya

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

Unotable actress with unotable roles only. (And the Russian page looks like it was deleted twice!) Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No awards, no notable articles about her anywhere. Burden of proof is on the proposer to show how this woman is Notable. See also https://www.google.ru/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:BIO through WP:NACTOR. [26] [27] and yes... finding Russian sources for this Russian actress is difficult, but needing work does not mean we delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first of these source is a web-page of the theater she is imployed in (I guess we do not assume that every actor employs in this theater is notable), the second one is not a RS. I am a Russian speaker, and I tried to find sources. There is a lot of hits, but all of them, with the exception of the theater website, just mention her in film crews.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had hoped to !vote Weak-Keep and express the idea of taking the sources from her Russian WP article .... Problem is she doesn't have one!, Searching her English name only brings up [28][29] which is useless as the first is basically an IMDb rip off and the other someones opinion ...., Her Russian name on the other hand brings up Random peoples facebook accounts .... So I'm not really finding any evidence of notability at all..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She must have gotten some press for Viktor, but I am having difficulties finding any press at all, beyond trivial mentions in the lists of crews.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 28 March 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Emerson

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 7 March 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) 06:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's not generally necessary to vote for your own nominations unless you wish to modify or withdraw the nomination. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a classic case of WP:INHERITED and failure of WP:GNG.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Emerson meets WP:GNG based on the following, just in the New York Times: LEAVES LABRADOR TO WED.; Amelia Forbes, Society Girl Nurse, to Marry Raymond Emerson. August 06, 1912; and this Concord Revives Tradition Of Emerson on School Board. February 14, 1926; and this Raymond Emerson, 90, Ex-Engineer And Grandson of Famed Essayist. Oct. 30, 1977. I'm sure a little more work will generate further citations. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 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 01:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the argument above from Fiachra10003. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:52, 28 March 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. Michig (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DeRosa (comedian)

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

Does not meet WP:N guidelines. The article contains no WP:RS because there aren't really any out there. If you Google him its really just his stand up gigs. Nothing showing why he is notable. The article really just shows that he has only been an extra before. - Galatz (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article may not have enough sources, you can notify people with the {{ref improve}} (or {{BLP sources}} in BLP pages), and he seems to be notable for various events, and part of your argument seems to be WP:GOOGLEHITS. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources DO exist and can be added with the proper prompting. DeRosa is a published author with television and movie writing credits. If DeRosa's article disappears over the arguments of notability, there are several stand-up comedians with the same or less credits on Wikipedia that could and should follow. Once again, if the case is being made on reliable sources, we should allow for those sources to be added. Deleting the article is not the solution. My personal opinion, in seeing the edit history of the nominator, is that this is a possible attempt by an Anthony Cumia fan to discredit DeRosa. Cumia fans have been harassing DeRosa via Twitter and vandalizing DeRosa's Wikipedia page since the two got into a disagreement in September 2014. To me, this seems like a passive aggressive way of continuing the attack on DeRosa. NJZombie (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit history should show that I work hard on tons of articles. I have nothing against Joe DeRosa, and if you look at the talk page I said that I dont think that the argument should be included here. I don't think it should be because its immaterial and makes no baring. I have nothing against him, I think he is a funny comedian, I just dont think he is notable. Not every author is notable, not every writer is notable, what makes him more notable than any other? - Galatz (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible that I'm incorrect. It's just the impression I get based off your multiple edits to the Anthony Cumia Show article and the trend of that show's fans attempting to disparage Joe every chance they get. As far as what makes him notable, it's no one single accomplishment, such as being published. It's the combination of being a published co-author of a book with two other notable comedians with a list of other accomplishments. Being a writer on the Pete Holmes show and performing the one of the show's standout recurring bits, being featured in two Comedy Central specials, being a a voice actor in GTA V (one of the highest selling video games of all time), appearing on notable shows such as Inside Amy Schumer, Sullivan & Son, Louie and, most recently, Better Call Saul. These were not simply "extra" roles as a guy in the background. Add to those being a frequent contributor to Red Eye where he appeared over three dozen times. He's just as noteworthy as comedians like Kurt Metzger and Jay Oakerson who have done similar work and rightfully have Wikipedia pages as well. Are we going to take all of their pages down as well? If not, this deletion request seems awfully frivolous and biased. NJZombie (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel I am biased, but if you go through my history, especially with the extensive history on the hot button Israel/Palestinian topic, you will see that I make a lot of edits to fix articles to be WP:NPOV. Just because I have a feeling in my head, I feel that wikipedia is supposed to be a place where people can come and get educated on the topic, not educated on my POV.

As for the topic at hand my criteria for suggesting deletion is based solely on WP:N and more specifically WP:GNG. In order to be notable they must have Significant coverage which I do not believe Joe DeRosa does.

If you read WP:AUTHOR, I do not believe the book they wrote (which as a side note I own and loved), meets those criteria. It might have been read by stand up fans, but it had very limited success in general.

Check out WP:ANYBIO, what major contributions has he made to the field? There are tons of people who have written for TV shows, appears on shows, etc. Although he has done it several times, it does not make him notable. Nothing he did on them was very notable. If you want to see more specially what I mean, read WP:ENTERTAINER. He didn't have significant roles. I would not consider him having a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, but if you disagree what is your basis for his large cult following? None of his appearances would meet the criteria of unique, prolific or innovative contributions.

I hope this helps you understand that this is coming from a complete NPOV standpoint. The reason this article has no WP:RS used as sources is because there are none out there. He might be funny, he just is not notable. - Galatz (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It helps me understand nothing as I'm still waiting to hear how these rules affect only DeRosa and not other comedians with articles and similar credits or less. He'll, there are many comics, bands and actors with articles that could be deleted on the pages you're citing but I don't see you proposing other deletions based on lack of notability.It still comes off as a way to get at DeRosa and I'm not buying it otherwise. I've said my piece and put in my vote to keep. Basing reliable sources strictly on the first results of a Google search and then saying none exist and the article should be deleted is ridiculous. NJZombie (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am on vacation and haven't had a chance to look at the pages you mentioned, but based on my knowledge of Jay Oakerson he is certainly not notable, but without researching him further I cannot say. If I do not feel he is notable I certainly would nominate him as well - Galatz (talk) 00:28, 13 March 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, J04n(talk page) 16:11, 13 March 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 01:16, 21 March 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.

^ http://www.wwmaa.org/articles/pdf/art013.pdf

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=kNkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=robey+reed+judo&source=bl&ots=QdxYLLZegA&sig=jLSwY_q2CpywYB9G1sJh3epKMrs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rdHsVIn6BInBgwSv94KYDQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=robey%20reed%20judo&f=false

[2] ttp://www.alpo-astronomy.org/jbeish/Resume_of_Judo.htm

[3] ttp://www.ssckarate.ca/Dojo/Student%20hand%20book.pdf

[4] ttp://www.wwmaa.org/articles/pdf/art013.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

Medal record
Mens Judo
Representing USA
US Armed Forces Far Eastern
	Silver	1964
1st Tachikawa Invitational Armed Forces Judo tournament
	Silver	1965
US Air Force Championship
	Silver	1966
Inland Empire Championship
	Gold	1971
National AAU Championship
	Silver	1975