Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maroš Molnár

Maroš Molnár (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Withdrawn by nominator- alternate version at https://sk.wikipedia.org/ identified. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, unsourced, comprehensively fails WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out let's discuss it 00:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-I was thinking delete until I notice that there is a link to another wiki that has more info on that wiki site. Wgolf (talk) 04:24, 6 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currency converter

Currency converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly-sourced article about currency converter software that seems to fail WP:GNG. The article is built entirely upon original research and apparently serves as a coatrack for adding spam links. I am unable to find any sources that discuss currency converter software as a cohesive topic. There are many books that describe how to code a currency converter, but nothing that covers the subject from an encyclopedic standpoint. - MrX 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - MrX 14:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge Currency conversion is a significant issue in trade, economics and accounting. Unfortunately, currency conversion is just a redirect and it won't help if the title in question is made a red link too. As the nominator observes, there are many books which talk about aspects of the topic - over 11,000 it seems. There are therefore reasonable alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- simply finding a bunch of google hits that have the words "currency" and "conversion" in them does not help to make an article. I've done some looking around, and I agree with the nominator that there is nothing with which to build a coherent article. The current content is a sourceless essay serving as a coatrack for all kinds of spammy links, so it should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the article itself is in a lousy condition, but the subject itself is significant and documented. Harej (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is a poorly referenced stub, but the topic is likely notable. Here's a reliable source: a short but reliable entry in the A & C Black Publishers Ltd (1 January 2009). Dictionary of Leisure, Travel and Tourism. A&C Black. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-4081-0212-1.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because there is such a thing as software which calculates currency conversion does not mean it's notable. We have no article on the calculator utilities that come with every OS and smartphone. Why? Because there's no secondary coverage. In order to keep this article, it would need to be an article on the general idea of currency conversion software (not just the idea of currency exchange), and to do that, we'd need secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: topic meets WP:GNG, the article's referencing and content issues can be fixed via normal editing (see WP:BEFORE § c2), and, thus, the issues are not a valid rationale for AfD. Esquivalience ^t 00:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is bare on references, but the article seems like it can be improved in the future. The topic is notable enough to be added on or referenced, and I see no evidence of spam or advertising. DSCrowned^(talk) 09:09, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Shade

Jake Shade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Local (county) level politicians are not usually considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. While there an exception for local politicians who have "received significant press coverage", I don't think the press coverage for Mr. Shade can be considered significant. It's more the sort of local press coverage that any county level politician might receive. He certainly has not received coverage in national or international level media. Essentially, I am not seeing anything that makes the subject stand out from the thousands of other county level politicians that are out there, except possibly his age. The article does make an attempt to establish notability by noting that he "is currently the youngest elected official in the state of Maryland", however that is a temporary claim to fame (give it a few years, and he will no longer be the youngest). It would be different if he were notable for being the youngest ever to have been elected, but I can not find sources to support such a claim. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Burroughs was 18 when elected to a school board position in Prince George's County, Md., but this is a school board position not a position of great importance, such as a County Councilman and Legislative Director for two of Maryland's House Ways and Means Committee Delegates, as in the case of Jake Shade. It's short-sighted to say te least that Mr. Shade isn't notable enough in the state.

Mr. Burroughs page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Burroughs_(elected_official)

Thetruthspeaker14 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say it, but County Councilman isn't a position of "great importance" either ... and "Legislative Director" is a staff position, it's not an elected one. Mr. Shade seems to be a promising and ambitious young politician, who will probably go on to hold a notable office at some point in the future. But I question whether his career has reached that point YET. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I generally agree with Blueboar, the article may not clearly pass Politician. In my opinion, it also does not clearly fail either. Truthspeaker14 also brings about a point that Wikipedia has room for similar articles. In my opinion, the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. For these reasons, I am voting keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this one is not cut and dried... which is why we need to discuss it here. Councilman Shade has certainly has gained press coverage... but that coverage is all in relatively local level media. I suppose the question we have to decide here is whether the local level coverage qualifies as being significant enough, or not. My reading of the relevant guidelines is that we would need something more.

Oh... and as for the fact that the Edward Burroughs (elected official) article exists ... WP:OTHERSTUFF has never been a good argument at AfD... Having looked at that article, I question whether its subject is notable enough... and I may nominate that article for deletion as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable politician and no significant coverage that doesn't come with being any elected official at any level.131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator says "Local (county) level politicians are not usually considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia." Quite so. Should Mr. Shade advance to statewide office, an entry would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He is proclaimed the youngest official in MD, but his age is not included anywhere in the article. Is this an oversight? Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Some county commissioners have been in Wikipedia. [1] in Los Angeles County is one. Some commissioners have quite a few constituents. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Another county commissioner in Prince William County, VA. [2]. Sometimes they are called supervisors, instead of commissioners. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why you always have to judge these things on a subject by subject basis, and can not play the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS game. WP:POLITICIAN says that while most county level politicians are not considered notable enough, there are exceptions to that generalized rule. Regarding the two people Billy mentions (Michael D. Antonovich and Corey Stewart (politician))... not only is there is more than local press coverage for each of them... they both have been candidates for State wide office (Lt. Gov.) These factors make a difference... and separate notable subjects like Antonovitch and Stewart from purely local politicians like Mr. Shade. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 15 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of Life Reviews

Physics of Life Reviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep having an impact factor assigned by the Journal Citation Reports, as this journal does, is an automatic pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Everymorning talk 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A peer-reviewed journal from the top publisher (Elsevier), indexed in the most prestigious journal database (Web of Science), having a high impact factor (latest value is 9.478) and 40k+ Google hits (Phys. Life Rev. + Physics of Life Reviews). What else do you need for notability? Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-- Out of my field, but I know my way around academic journals and this seems an obvious keep to me. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Aside from Web of Science, this is also indexed with the National Library of Medicine and ProQuest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Nom should be trouted for not getting more familiar with WP:NJournals before nominating this for deletion. Huge impact factor, very notable journal (even though the article could beeefit from some expanding). My suggestion is that the nom withdraws the nomination so that we can close this and avoid wasting more of the communities time. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 9 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. Nakon 01:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riachão (São Bento)

Riachão (São Bento) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't warrant an article since we have Sao Bento (Paraiba). smileguy91 nominated this article before, but did not advocate deletion. In fact, I'm not even sure we can merge anything. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to São Bento, Paraíba. Two mere short sentences do not make up an article, it's not even worth a stub. São Bento, Paraíba is still short and can easily absorb all information contained in the nominated article - which is close to nothing at all. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 02:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a small village. Also, has nine language links; primary article appears to be Portuguese. Have improved/wikified it a little. -Arb. (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places; "Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low." -Arb. (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though I nominated it for deletion, at the time I nominated it, it did not have sufficient context to clearly show what exactly the village was. But now, I believe it is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia after edits. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 15:18, 9 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. Nakon 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Adventist School Athletics

Canadian Adventist School Athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA, possibly promotion. Boleyn (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Can't find anything to establish notability. ~EdGl! 04:13, 12 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Forster

Rosalind Forster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sadly - did a bit of research and it looks like she's not eligible to be on Wikipedia just yet. Let's hope her work gets collected by a museum or two, perhaps :) Missvain (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - she's had zero solo exhibits in major art centers, such as London, New York or Santa Fe. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also looked around and cannot find significant coverage or other evidence of notability. --Arthistorygrrl (talk) 18:50, 11 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. Nakon 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Village of La Jolla

Village of La Jolla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This place doesn't seem to exist. There are no sources, and it's not listed as either a "locale" or "populated place" in GNIS. GNIS lists "La Jolla Village Square Shopping Center", but that's a shopping center, and seems to be covered by the article La Jolla Village, San Diego. If this is "the center of La Jolla", then it should be included on the La Jolla article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Neutral for now, pending review of Arxiloxos' new information) Although locals, especially long-established La Jollans, do use the term "the Village" to refer to the downtown center area of La Jolla, I could not find any Reliable Source use of the term. Not even Realtors seem to use it much. I couldn't even find a good definition of exactly where "the Village" is; the photo in this article is of La Jolla in general, with (I think) La Jolla Cove in the foreground. I added one reference, but it is not from a Reliable Source. In a Google search, I find that even Reliable Sources sometimes confuse "the Village of La Jolla" with "La Jolla Village," which is a well defined separate area, several miles away and "up the hill" from the coastal "Village". There is already an entry about the "Village" in the La Jolla article, but I don't think a redirect would be helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According the City of San Diego Planning Department: "'The Village' includes the area within the boundary of Prospect Street, Girard Avenue and Torrey Pines Road." [3] or alternatively , it's "generally bounded by Prospect Street, Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Boulevard and Pearl Street". [4] There are many other pages on the city website that use the phrase; I haven't looked at all of them. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Arxiloxos indicates this is an officially defined neighborhood. I suggest a name change to Village (La Jolla neighborhood) to lessen confusion with La Jolla Village, San Diego. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The downtown part of La Jolla is often known as the "village" and seems to be well-defined enough by the City to merit its own subarticle, as with Bird Rock and La Jolla Shores. It certainly could use expansion, but I think there are enough sources to at least get this beyond a stub. Uncertain about name change - seems to me that Carrite's proposed name could just as easily be confused with the "other" LJ Village. The developers of La Jolla Village created the confusion, but I think we're stuck with it. There will always be people looking for the "wrong" "Village." Dohn joe (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, subject has received sufficient mentions in multiple reliable sources, although it can be argued that none have been significant, in order to meet WP:GEOLAND. See:

Barry M. Berndes (1981). San Diegan. San Diegan. p. 146. ISBN 978-1-890226-14-5.

Carol Olten (11 April 2011). La Jolla. Arcadia Publishing. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-4396-2551-4.

Eleanor Harris; Claudia Harris Lichtig (1 November 2006). Quick Escapes Los Angeles: Getaways from the Metro Area. Globe Pequot. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-7627-4219-6.

Fodor's (6 January 2009). Fodor's 2009 Southern California: With Central Coast, Yosemite, and San Diego. Fodor's Travel Publications. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-4000-0806-3.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 14 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. Nakon 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fawad Khan (actor)

Fawad Khan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Actor who I can't find notability for. Even saying "staring in a upcoming film" Wgolf (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, way too soon, BLP1E at best, a single (significant?) role is not enough to meet WP:NACTOR. --Cavarrone 06:05, 15 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. Nakon 01:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Bloomfield

Ellen Bloomfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was unsure if to put a AFD or not-but looking over this, she does have somewhat notability, but not sure if enough for here. We can't have pages for every person who has or works in a community theater. (I'm saying this even as someone who enjoys some community theater as I did it in HS) Wgolf (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject is a high-school drama teacher, i.e. not notable per se, and the 3 supporting refs are from local paper that announce drama club productions. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 22:50, 10 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. Nakon 01:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Qutub Ali Shah

Syed Qutub Ali Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Part of a series of unsourced/self-sourced promotional articles on the ancestors of the Nakvi family of Pakistan. Nearly all have been created by the same user User:Shahenshahkillz [5]; are linked from Family tree of Jahaniyan Jahangasht (recreated, earlier XfD'ed as Family tree of Jahania) and are characterised by a custom sidebar. In all of them, Google returns few hits if any. Summing up: delete for WP:N, WP:V and WP:PROMO. kashmiri ^TALK 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pax 06:30, 4 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklock's Reporter

Blacklock's Reporter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has reliable source reuters Jonpatterns (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the one-sentence mention in Reuters source is not relevant to Blacklock's notability. However, its start-up to achieve 500 subscribers was featured by The Tyee in 2012. It is registered with the Parliamentary Press Gallery Times-Colonist. Did sue the government for alleged copyright violation for bureaucrat emailing story to coworkers Ottawa Citizen. Civil servants were banned from accessing the site at work - Metro News.Canuckle (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a number of references that show notability.
  • http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1253595/government-agency-blocked-public-servants-from-accessing-blacklocks-news-website/
    • http://rabble.ca/news/2015/01/feds-ban-news-website-on-public-employees-computers
  • http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/the-gargoyle-finance-canada-sued-for-copyright
  • http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2012/10/26/Blacklocks-Reporter/

Additionally, if you search Google News you'll see that it's frequently cited by major news orgs. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nice secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominatino withdrawn - my error, thanks for all your help. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 10 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. Nakon 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Grant

Melissa Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable as kickboxer (WP:KICK), no indication of notability for anything else. I tried speeding this but that was declined. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keepshe passes WP:GNG. is well known and is notable enough for an article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported claims don't make it true. Mdtemp (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't have a single source just some external links that show no significant coverage and no achievements that would show notability as a kickboxer. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:KICK and the article appears to have COI issues. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage or successes to meet GNG or KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 19:07, 10 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. Nakon 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shah e Najaf, Hyderabad

Shah e Najaf, Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a non-notable shrine/organisation and is a part of a series of unsourced/self-sourced promotional articles on the ancestors and activities of the Nakvi family of Pakistan. Nearly all have been created by the same user User:Shahenshahkillz [6]; are linked from Family tree of Jahaniyan Jahangasht (recreated, earlier XfD'ed as Family tree of Jahania) and are characterised by a "Tando Jahania" custom sidebar. In all of them, Google returns few hits if any.

Summing up: delete for WP:N, WP:V and WP:PROMO. kashmiri ^TALK 21:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL religious center. Pax 06:24, 4 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 and redirect to Wikipedia:Wiki magic. Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki magic

Wiki magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-Notable Neologism which is a fork of matters covered in the encyclopedic topics crowdsourcing and collective intelligence. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article came up as the object of scorn in a recent Wikipediocracy thread. I don't think it passes GNG and leave the matter to the community for decision. The article is a particularly low traffic piece, it might also be noted. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Move to Wikipedia:Wiki magic. The subject isn't seem notable enough for its own article, though it may fit on the Wikipedia namespace. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Seems to be a TV Tropes thing: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WikiMagic Eddymason (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to wiki. We cover what the article describes many places, including wiki but also e.g. Wisdom of the crowd, collective intelligence, collective action, swarm intelligence, maybe even stigmergy...But if we're considering the neologism to be non-notable (which indeed I think it fails WP:NEO), it should probably just point to the underlying subject, which of course is partially defined by this sort of collaboration. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 15 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. Nakon 01:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shani Rigsbee

Shani Rigsbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a noteworthy artist. News reports in references appear to actually be press releases. Prod removed without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree article was in sad shape, clearly deserving of an AfD, but hopefully problems fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, references added, unreliable references removed, etc. References are here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. That said, I do not see Rigsbee as being super notable, that is, I think part of the problem with the previous incarnation of the article was too much unsupported expansion, and that the way to again keep the article off the chopping block is to keep it short, sweet, with good references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How the gnomes disappeared from the Campine

How the gnomes disappeared from the Campine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY, no foreign-lang WP articles I can mine for info. Perhaps someone with better linguistic skills could prove me wrong? Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a story about this at Gnome King Kyrië, but I don't see where it's this particular story. From what I can see, the gnomes disappeared because of the death of Kyrië, although the thing about folklore is that if you have one story then odds are there are ten others that tell a slightly or completely different tale. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And therein is the difficulty with folklore: because there are so many different versions that are handed down orally, it's exceptionally hard to show notability for or verify anything other than the most mainstream of the stories. (Especially if the stories are told in another language.) I don't doubt that this is a folklore story since it reads like one, but I just don't entirely know where it'd pass notability guideline. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 9 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. Nakon 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Schlosberg

Carol Schlosberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Concerns about Scholsberg passing WP:GNG and WP:Creative. She was the victim of a murder in Mexico and that seems to be what she is (sadly) known for more than being an artist. An art gallery at university was named after her, but, it seems to be the case of WP:ONEEVENT. However, I could be wrong, and perhaps someone else have a different and convincing opinion - and better citations, too (aside from the few press articles that cover the murder). And, please keep in mind I am not trying to be malicious by nominating this article. I also have very little experience in crime areas of Wikipedia. I hope we can have a civil conversation about this article. Thank you everyone. -- Missvain (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The murder, of an American artist who was raped, then drowned, while walking on a Mexican beach, generated enough publicity at the time to pass WP:GNG, as a murder victim whose death drew significant attention, not as an artist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment have added a couple of sources, the death was widely covered at the time. Possibly the article should be moved to : Murder of Carol Schlosberg.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per user Gregory.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I support the idea of moving it to Murder of Carol Schlosberg per User:E.M.Gregory Missvain (talk) 18:39, 12 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. Sources provided are indeed on the trivial side. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Daredevil's Manual

The Daredevil's Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not finding references that convince me this book meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not appear to meet WP:BKCRIT. After several source searches, I have only found one short review: [7]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrew my !vote above for the time being. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find anything either, although I did find a source for the author here. If more sources can be found then we could have an article for the author, although it'd need more than just the two sources listed here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "Books". Star-News. 2005-01-11. p. 4D. Retrieved 2015-03-09.

     The article notes:

     'The Daredevil's Manual' by Ben Ikenson (Barnes & Noble, $9.95). The Worst-Case Scenario people get some competition from this volume, which shows readers how to rip a telephone book in half (suggestion: start with a small one), juggle chainsaws, hold rattlesnakes in one's mouth, drive nails into one's nostrils, walk on coals or drive a motorcycle through a wall of fire.

     Don't try to sue the bookstore, by the way. The publishers say this is all "for entertainment purposes only" and disclaim all liability. (Darn!)

  2. Maniaty, Tony (2006-03-18). "Miscellany". The Australian.

     The article notes:

     The Daredevil's Manual

     By Ben Ikenson, Macmillan, 172pp, $19.95

     ADMIT it: you've always wanted to juggle chainsaws or swallow a sword. You just weren't sure how to do it, right? Ben Ikenson's handy guide is a lawyer's dream, although disclaimers are prominent. Walking on hot coals ``can seriously impair pedestrian mobility; balancing 75 drinking glasses on your chin can leave ``heavy glass shards in your body; wrestling an alligator tempts ``permanent damage, disfigurement and death. Extremes: catching an arrow mid-flight while blindfolded, and holding live rattlesnakes in the mouth. Good luck.

  3. Swart, Genevieve (2006-04-30). "Humor - Books". Sun Herald.

     The review notes:

     The Daredevil's Manual

     Ben Ikenson

     (Pan Macmillan, $19.95)

     THINK about it: what kind of person needs a manual to be a daredevil? Got the answer? Good. Now we've ascertained this is a book for little, grey men in little, grey offices, let's look at its other crimes: chiefly, not being funny and relying on internet research. A bold cover appears to promise lessons on parachuting off buildings, walking on hot coals and eating live scorpions, then the publishers immediately get cold feet, issuing a comprehensive disclaimer warning you not to try swallowing swords and the like at home. Yawn. Suddenly, a bed of nails sounds preferable to actually reading this gimmick.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Daredevil's Manual to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says:

  A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. ...

  Cunard (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The above reviews from Cunard are reproduced in full. All are on the trivial side. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:29, 12 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. Delete all. None of the articles included in the nomination have any significant notability. Nakon 01:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iskinskoe mine

Iskinskoe mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shelekhovskoye mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kamen mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rajiceva Gora mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zajača mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sarylakh mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Khartolgoi mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Zuun Togoo Uul mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Senatachan mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Manciano mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vrelo mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The articles above have the following in common:

• All created by Bine Mai
• All are comprised of a few sentences, sourced on effectively a mineral deposit listing (which in itself is not enough to establish notability) or a company website.
• None actually explain why the subject is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia.
• Many claim to be the "largest mines in the country" when they are actually not mines at all, rather just a deposit.

Note that in addition to the ones above, there are literally hundreds of others by the same user that are near identical in composition and sourcing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Lots of bogus articles created by this user. Volcanoguy 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 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) 20:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Rahman

Mohammed Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No credible assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although I'm not familiar with British local government positions, I have performed an advanced Google search to find results from the United Kingdom using the words "Mohammed Rahman" Corby. I realized that Mohammed Rahman appears many times, but as passing mentions, with maybe two exceptions including this article from the website of Brooke Weston Academy concerning a curry boot camp, which is not notable. The only other article with significant coverage that I could find was this one, but still, my limited research indicates that the position of "Councillor" and "Mayor" in this context is basically ceremonial. Outside of Corby, Mr. Rahman seems to be unknown, and according to the first reference in the article, he became councillor thanks to 810 votes, which I believe is far from impressive. I don't see how this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC criteria. Dontreader (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a local councillor. British non-executive mayors are not notable, as they are annually elected, largely ceremonial positions in which every long-serving councillor will get his turn eventually. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 11 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism with a Northern Accent

Socialism with a Northern Accent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article contains four sources:
  1. Callaghan, John (29 July 2012). "Book Review: Socialism With A Northern Accent: Radical Traditions for Modern Times". London School of Economics. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
  2. Brown, Matthew. "Socialism with a Northern Accent". Independent Labour Publications.
  3. "Northern soul: Socialism with a Northern Accent". Red Pepper. September 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
  4. "Nostalgia: Radical read looks back to the future". Huddersfield Daily Examiner. 18 April 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  The Independent Labour Publications article might not be reliable but the other three are.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Socialism with a Northern Accent to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says:

  A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. ...

  Cunard (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the significant coverage in the reviews found by Cunard, which establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawen my error, Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 14 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grace V. Kelly

Grace V. Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I could not establish that he Kelly meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article was created yesterday at the Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism 2015 edit-a-thon. - Eureka Lott 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are numerous reliable sources that establish her notability. Her work is covered in the books A Brush With Light: Watercolor Painters of Northeast Ohio, 1903-1958 (1998) and Henry Keller's Summer School in Berlin Heights (1990), both published by the Cleveland Artists Foundation. Biographical entries about her appear in the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History and Artists in Ohio, 1787-1900: A Biographical Dictionary. The Cleveland Museum of Art's May Show database reports that she exhibited 165 works between 1919 and 1950, and won numerous awards. I'm sure there are plenty more sources that my initial search didn't uncover. - Eureka Lott 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the article if you have time. I've jigged the article a little.Jonpatterns (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as per my own search and that of User:EurekaLott E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of reliable sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 22:09, 8 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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iskinskoe mine for additional articles from this author. Nakon 01:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valja Strzh mine

Valja Strzh mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, article is entirely sourced by an Analyst Tour Book. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Place called google:Valja strž does exist on the mountain of Crni Vrh (Bor), but it is only a prospective gold and copper deposit of unknown viability. Actual open-pit mines of Bor are called Veliki Krivelj and Cerovo [8]. So, the information in the article is false. Valja strž has numerous mentions in geological papers [9] and some passing mentions in press [10] but it's certainly a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Should be mentioned in a paragraph in Crni Vrh (Bor), but currently there's nothing useful to merge. No such user (talk) 20:25, 8 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. Nakon 01:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foam Lake mine

Foam Lake mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally proposed for deletion under the rational of this not being a "mine" rather an exploration property, and declined with suitable rationale, however I don't think this property meets the threshold for inclusion for Wikipedia. Entirely sourced with primary sources, there is this which briefly mentions Foam Lake, but isn't enough in my opinion. I don't think it meets the general notability guidelines. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mining exploration sites are a dime a dozen, and may take years or even decades before they actually turn into active mines (and sometimes never actually turn into active mines at all.) So we can't viably create an article about every individual mining claim that gets staked. If this is part of a larger geological formation such as the Bakken shale, the Sudbury Basin or the Northern Ontario Ring of Fire, then that formation would certainly be a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, and this exploratory mine could be given an unlinked mention in that article — but it shouldn't be its own standalone article until it's actually crossed over from "exploratory site" to "actively producing mine". Delete (or merge, if a suitable larger geological target can be identified.) Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron F. Straight

Aaron F. Straight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and without any supporting sources, WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Associate professor who does not reach the (admittedly demanding) standard of WP:Notability (academics). The article author wrote on the talk page "I work at Stanford Department of Biochemistry and have been asked to create a wikipedia page for all of our professors". I have tried to head him off at the pass by explaining on his talk page about WP:COI and advising that he submits drafts, and only about those who meet WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unambiguous delete per WP:GNG and probably WP:PROF. Biochem is a very active field with a high threshold for "making a significant impact," and his memberships are of the rank-and-file variety; we might be missing something important about him, but we can't know because his WP:RS coverage is nil. Thanks for working on explaining, I'll go try to soothe feelings without piling on. FourViolas (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC); edited 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An h-index of 25, by my count, is enough for WP:PROF. His top paper has 889 citations. -- 120.17.65.148 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His work is well and widely cited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's well-cited, although that's much less remarkable in the life sciences than in other areas (see H-index#Criticism); we could argue about his PROF#1 status. But we simply can't make an article without independent WP:RS, and all I can find is a list of authors in a Stanford press release, a list of fellowship winners in a Stanford press release (with a sentence about research interests), and half a paragraph in Stanford's official PR mouthpiece. There's nothing like in-depth coverage, and no independent sources. FourViolas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's his university web page for basic facts, and there's copious literature where other scientists discuss his work. -- 120.17.0.168 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately. I sympathize with the article creator's comments on the talk page - WP:PROF is pretty woolly and Wikipedia's coverage of scientists is so patchy and inconsistent that waiting for "someone random" to write articles is like funding your morning coffee exclusively with change you find on the sidewalk. Despite the COI, the article is not promotional in tone and doesn't exaggerate the subject's achievements. (Also, holy crap look at that poor person's talk page. Thanks FourViolas for being a voice of sanity.) But in the end Straight is just following a normal high-performer career trajectory, not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:35, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyword

Skyword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just like the prior entry, this time the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Whoever accepted this at AfC (User:Ctg4Rahat) should read up on the relevant policies before adding more spam to Wikipedia (the article was even tagged as an advert prior to being moved to the mainspace! Also ping User:AllyD, User:CerealKillerYum, User:czar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have not yet evaluated whether the references in the new article are sufficient to overturn the deletion position from December, but this suggests a broader point. Should a step be added to the AfC process, such that existence of a prior AfD deletion decision is checked, so that if a reviewer is minded to accept the AfC, s/he automatically refers it back to AfD? AllyD (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If the reviewer is using the AfC script (which almost everyone does), they are notified if the page was previously deleted. A new AfD is not generally needed for previously deleted material, and requiring one would be a waste of people's time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the advert tag, it was (incorrectly) added by an inexperienced user in Draft space and (correctly) removed by Ctg4Rahat when he accepted the article. The current state of the article does not read like an ad at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The company has received substantial reliable source coverage in a variety of sources, some of which is already in the article. For example, The New York Times does not write about non-notable businesses. The company's research is cited as expert opinion by Forbes. Its activities have even been noted by French language sources. All-in-all, there are hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of reliable sources either writing about Skyword or using Skyword as an expert opinion: [11] & [12]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the NYT piece seems to be reliable and more than a passing coverage, all other mentions you cite seem rather trivial (in passing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"All other" articles listed consists of two sources that were cited as an example of a specific thing - being quoted as experts by reputable sources or being noticed even in foreign media - not necessarily as examples of in depth coverage. Other examples of substantial coverage include [13][14][15] and so on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The above recommendation for Strong Keep is strongly based on the primary criteria within the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:CORPDEPTH is clearly met by the The New York Times as well as "StartOut.org". Both these pieces along with the others references within the article provide context about the importance of the company within its industry as well its importance to the community. The company's expert opinion is also recently cited by "Harvard Business Review". Along with other regional, national, and international coverage this hits WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND criteria. --Massgrownpro — Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Massgrownpro:, FYI (in response to your edit summary), yes you are allowed to "vote". However, decisions are made based on the strength of arguments, not numbers, so your "comment" is equally effective. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oversinging

Oversinging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Oversinging is not considered a technical term. Melisma is already a well sourced and documented article. There is no reason for this article to exist beyond bias. Randompk (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article is well referenced. Furthermore the nominator has given no reason for this article's deletion. HĐ (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Plenty of reliable references in the article already, article is being steadily improved by many contributors. See little reason to delete. Oversinging is a wider concept than Melisma. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oversinging is not the same as melsima and, even if it were, this would be addressed by merger not deletion per our editing policy. The topic is notable - see Management of Oversinging Injury, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not the most "respectable" article, because it's about an informal concept (which is not a synonym for "melisma" at all). However, its sources as used are perfectly reliable in this context—pop music and music ed—so WP:GNG is amply met. It's not as classical-canonical as vibrato, but it's important to the people it's important to and it's not our job to say those people are ignorable. FourViolas (talk) 12:40, 8 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. Consensus is that the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Sellars

Nina Sellars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and the professor test. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I haven't looked into the subject, but this looks like it was created by a new user as part of the Art+Feminism series of meetups yesterday. There are more events related to women and feminism going on today. Looks pretty bitey to be taking these articles to AfD so soon. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think it's bitey to respond to floods of articles about non-notable people with an AfD (and I wish the people who organise such mass article creations would stress WP:RS and WP:N more). The guideline here is obviously WP:ARTIST rather than WP:PROF, since the subject has no cited academic publications. The artist criteria are:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. -- I'm seeing a half-dozen citations in books, which I don't think counts as "widely cited"

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. -- I don't think this is true either

3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -- I can find no reviews specifically of Sellars' work, although she gets brief mentions in reviews of some multi-artist exhibits

4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. -- the only real possibility here, I think, is (b), and I don't think "substantial" and "significant" are satisfied

It should be noted that Sellars has worked in collaboration with Stelarc, who is notable (but WP:NOTINHERITED). -- 120.17.65.148 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple solo exhibitions, several high-profile group exhibitions (including at the Wellcome Trust and the Trinity College Science Gallery - science/art crossover audience). One of the Stelarc/Sellars pieces was reviewed in depth here, her work is discussed in this book on science-inspired artwork and in this book, she's one of several examples of science/art collaborations described in high-profile science journals - the BMJ (free reprint here) and Nature here (not free) - are we done yet? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable exhibitions and much commented upon by others, thus satisfying WP:BASIC, e.g., [16], [17], [18] and [19]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while she fails the Prof test, she's clearly notable per GNG - based on the available book sources and solo exhibits in major "art" cities. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage demonstrates sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 15 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) 08:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaanimmarik

Jaanimmarik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable school. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Secondary schools do get kept unfortunately, I don't agree with it but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 7 March 2015‎

• Keep - plenty of sources out there to meet WP:ORG. The way forward is to research and expand not delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:56, 14 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) 20:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJabberd

DJabberd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to be particularly notable. Sources are GitHub links and documentation. I can't find many secondary sources talking about this past message boards.  DiscantX 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS coverage in multiple sources. Github is user-editable and not a reliable source, and the O'Reilly Media book only mentions DJabberd briefly on page 253, borderline significant coverage and on its own not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 04:20, 9 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) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Brown (musician)

Jared Brown (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally had this as a BLP prod, but looking over this, this seems more like a afd, not sure how much of this is true even. Wgolf (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely unsourced WP:BLP that makes no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC — and is so poorly written to boot that it's teetering on the edge of a WP:NOTADVERT violation. Definite delete — completely speediable, in fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 5 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) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Abney

Terri Abney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:ENT. Actor has only one significant role, in a film which has not been clearly established as being notable. Sources are Youtube, IMDB, and a passing Rotten Tomaties blurb, which appears to be WP:PRIMARY. Appears to be a case of WP:NYA. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the film in question does meet the notability requirements. The film has been covered and reviewed by credible sources around the web and features a very notable co-star Aunjanue Ellis. HipHopDoc (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The film may be notable, but it is this person's only notable role. Per WP:ENT, notability is conferred by multiple notable roles. Other criteria are also possible, but they need to be supported by reliable sources. The article currently does not have such sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A clip of the actress' performance was posted alongside a review of the movie Money Matters on the New York Times website.^[1] Ryan Richmond, the director of the film spoke very highly of Terri in a interview done by the Washington Post stating, “She gave a lot of herself. Her life was very similar to the character,” he then went on to say, “She just brought a level of honesty and vulnerability to the role that we couldn’t have asked for. As the lead character, we really needed that.”^[2] When asked about her experience working with Terri in an interview Aunjanue stated, "shout out to Ms. Terri, a student at Clark who is running thangs there".^[3] The actress in question is beyond a doubt notable to say the least. HipHopDoc (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Money Matters, this is about Terri Abney. Per WP:ENT, she has only had one noteworthy role, and that's not enough. The NYT source is just an AllMovie database, which is fine for factual details about the movie, but is not a good indicator of notability. The societyhae.com source is a WP:PRIMARY blog interview, and likewise doesn't support notability. The Washington Post article (which I added before I nominated the article for deletion) is useful to indicate that she was part of the movie, but it is still only one relatively minor movie. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Abney has acquired a cult-like following due to her role in the movie which makes her notable under the WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines HipHopDoc (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please include secondary, reliable sources to support that. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was covered by leading independent outlets such as Indiewire where once again her role was mentioned in the article. Her having a leading role in a notable film should make her notable by default. It's not as if she was an extra she is actually listed as the movies star alongside an accomplished actress (Aunjanue Ellis) ^[1] HipHopDoc (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was the star of that one movie, that is not in dispute. The Indiewire source is awfully weak, do you have anything else? It's just a three paragraph news-brief which mentions her once in a factual description of her role. It mentions nothing about any sort of cult following or fanbase. Having a lead role in a notable movie (which doesn't have its own article) does not automatically confer notability. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from being involved in something that is notable. Right now it's just WP:TOOSOON. Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT, i don't even see WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I'm just not seeing the substantial coverage in reliable sources that we need. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 16 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 C++. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Mascitti

Rick Mascitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Longtime unsourced BLP, no credible sources available Kharkiv07 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definitely not a hoax; numerous sources exist predating the article. Perhaps the most representative of many examples are the following:

• Kelly-Bootle, Stan. (1995). The Computer Contradictionary, p. 32 [20]. Boston: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262611121.
• Seed, Graham M. (2001). An Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming in C++, p. 4 [21]. Springer Science and Business Media. ISBN 9781852334505.

Whether that pushes the subject over the WP:N barrier is a different issue, but given the number of sources in academic writing on an obviously important programming language, I would lean toward Keep. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice - Article does not establish notability. I can't establish establish notability based on the searches I've just done. This won't be hard to rebuild if an editor gets excited about this topic though none have in the past 9 years. ~KvnG 00:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to C++. While there are numerous sources confirming that he coined the name C++ there's not much suggesting he meets WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:59, 15 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 Charles Sturt University. Selective merge: merge only Charles sturt university football club#Club History. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles sturt university football club

Charles sturt university football club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced, may even fall under WP:A7 because it is not referenced to any source that asserts notability. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the university page Abcmaxx (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge in to Charles Sturt University - Merge the club history & get rid of the rest. –Davey2010^Talk 16:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Charles Sturt University, which presently does not mention the football club. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 9 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) 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redshift (software)

Redshift (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Couldn't find any reliable, secondary sources for the subject. Has had a notability tag since October 2014. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 13:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is one: [22] Samsara 09:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, though the article needs a trim. Also reviewed in Lifehacker, Linux Magazine. Not exactly peer-reviewed research papers but for a minor piece of Linux software that's reasonable coverage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I went to the effort of googling to find those reviews, I added them to the article and trimmed as WP:NOT for your software's README files. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Three RS, some nearly-RS (e.g. [23]) and a long list of blog posts in at least two languages show that this has garnered considerable attention. Samsara 10:27, 2 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. Nakon 01:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International results

I think it is better to include Miss Grand International in the 3rd-tier section of the article List of beauty contests instead of deleting this article.--RenRen070193 07:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenRen070193 (talk • contribs)

Miss Grand International results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Content fork of Miss Grand International with extra red links The Banner talk 19:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The notability of the blue links also looks suspect to me, as does the notability of the Miss Grand International contest itself. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete Either merge this into Miss_Grand_International or delete both. I already read the article on deletion of the previous article, and I suggest you just let someone else nom' it for deletion Banner. Gimme a couple hours and ill nom it myself if I don't think its notable. Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:37, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Anwar

Taj Anwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

User Vaqab has attempted to propose this page for deletion, but has somehow not performed the syntax correctly. I will leave it to them to comment on the AfD as to why they wish to delete it. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Primefac.
Taj Anwar is not notable. The Wikipedia article for Taj Anwar was originally created for spammy promotional reasons. Vaqab (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Because there seem to be procedural problems with this article and I don't think that currently it is in a state that we can evaluate. Looking at the history, it was formerly over 6,000 characters long. But it has been subjected to page blanking and edit warring, until it has been reduced to a stub. To give it a fair chance, I think we need to evaluate the original text and sources, but we can't because they've been deleted.

The previous AfD ended as no consensus because the subject is covered in a chapter in this book, Rebel Moms: The Off-Road Map for the Off-Road Mom, by Davina Rhine, iUniverse (self publishing company). That argument is still valid. I looked at some of the sources that were present earlier, and many of them seem to be dead links. But one of them (the "gangsta" quote) was in the Wayback Machine, so I fixed that.

What I would suggest is that this article be edited to restore the sources that can be salvaged, and rewritten to the extent supported by those sources. And then if it's still not notable, it can be nominated again. (I'll also note that the nom has been on WP for only 2 days, but very active, and is clearly not a new editor.) – Margin1522 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Anwar was written about in a **self published** book, so I don't think that should count.

Looking at the edit history, you can see that what was deleted wasn't backed up by reliable sources.

The claims made in earlier versions of the Taj Anwar Wikipedia article were patently false. For example, it said she has a PhD since that is what she herself has claimed (but it isn't true).

If you google "Taj Anwar" you can see that she isn't notable, rather, a self-promoter. She calls herself a model but literally is not and never has been. Earlier versions of this Wikipedia article falsely claimed she had modeled for Banana Republic (this is 100% false).

Take a look at this version which is *filled* with false and/or unsourced claims. For example, that version claimed Taj Anwar's birth name is Tajik Assata Anwar Bahoul with no source. That version falsely says she was in graduate school and has a doctorate (completely false). She has no degree from Georgia State University. There are no legit sources. The man that's listed in that version as her "mentor, respected activist", Kalonji Jama Changa, is not notable either.

Her story is that she is on welfare ("governmental assistance") and has children. That's literally her activism, being a client of social services agencies and having children. None of the organizations that are listed in her Wikipedia article are notable.

Forgive me for repeating myself but I think it's unbelievable that there is a Wikipedia article on a random person when it's clear that it was created for self-promotional reasons and filled with outright, major lies. @Margin1522, nothing can be added back that has been erased because the Wikipedia article was never legitimate. It was full of lies (modeling, PhD) and self-promotion. Vaqab (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, although I'm dubious of the claim that she never modeled, since I think an earlier version Google had a link to a (minor) modelling agency 2007 social networking site for models, with her picture. That leads me to suspect that at least some of the other sources may have been legitimate. I'd also note that you seem to know a lot about the history of this article. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, it might be better to disclose whether you have been a major contributor. Per WP:MULTIPLE, it might also be a good idea to disclose whether you are or have been using another account. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Setting aside any problems with the nom, the subject fails GNG. Pax 06:45, 4 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 procedural close. Article has been moved to draft space, and I've marked the resulting redirect for deletion per R2. (non-admin closure) ansh666 09:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaquelín Abdalá

Yaquelín Abdalá (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as part of Art and Feminism meetup. A lot of the references around her are not in English; I was hoping that some of the other Meetup participants would be able to fill in the gaps. Creatrixtiara (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! WP:MEETUP? That is non-sequitur! Nonetheless, Creating an article for a subject means that the article creator is familiar with the subject (I don't mean COI in this case) and coming here to claim that sources are not in English seemed to be irrelevant to me because the burden to establish a subject notability is on the article creator. The fact that sources are not in English does not mean they can't be included in the article and failure to include them (at least 2 or 3 of them) simply suggested that they are not available. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a non-sequitur - it means that this is a new article and probably created by a new editor (as it is in this case), so it's particularly important to make an effort to assume good faith and explain guidelines in a friendly way. It's possible that User:Creatrixtiara didn't know until now that it's fine to include non-English sources. Looking for sources, I see several mentions of her work in Google Books, mostly in Spanish - it's not clear to me from those results whether she's notable, but they signal to me that this is at least worth thoughtfully researching. Tiara, do you think it could make sense to merge this information into Cuban art, to mention Abdalá's work there, if it doesn't manage to be its own article? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Creatrixtiara (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creatrixtiara, it is perfectly fine adding references not in English as far as English references of similar reliability confirming same info are not available.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - WP:BEFORE asks that nominators consider whether it's a newly created article. Only a few hours had passed since the creation of the article. When the article was nominated it qualified for CSD-A7, asserting no claim to notability, but it wasn't CSDed -- it was AfDed, and for not being notable, which is another matter. The article was subsequently improved somewhat, with claims to notability added such that it no longer qualifies for A7, and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to be improved. Rather than the condescending, WP:BITEy "Gosh! ..." perhaps consider the implications of Creatrixtiara's comment: that as an article created as part of an ongoing event, it will likely continue to be developed over the course of that event. Should it have been created in a sandbox first? You bet. Is the subject notable? I don't know. I don't blame you for trying to have it deleted when you did, but at this point I'd recommend withdrawing the nom and taking another look in a few days. I would also support a Move to draft, which is a good place for a new article created by a new user to start anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: ... in fact, I think it would be an entirely reasonable course of action for the nominator to withdraw and boldly move the article to the draftspace him/herself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do I move it to draftspace? I'm not really a new editor, but it's been a long time since I edited anything on Wikipedia (under a different account) and things seem to have changed a lot since then. I know that you can add non-English sources; however, because I didn't speak the source language, I wasn't confident about adding them in if I only knew what they were saying because of Google Translate. Creatrixtiara (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, that makes sense. :) Help:How to move a page has the basic mechanics for moving a page, and "draft space" can mean a page called something like Draft:Yaquelín Abdalá, or it can mean a page that's a sub-page of your userspace, such as User:Creatrixtiara/Yaquelín Abdalá - it's pretty much up to you. Moving it to a sub-page of your user space can help make it clear to random fellow editors that a person cares about the draft and hopes to improve it, so I'd mildly lean toward that (that's what I've eventually decided for my own drafts after doing both myself). There might be somewhere on Wikipedia to ask for assistance with interpreting references from speakers of a particular language, but I'm not sure where. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been moved to Draft:Yaquelín Abdalá. Creatrixtiara (talk) 07:33, 9 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. Nakon 01:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Joseph Doiron

Andrew Joseph Doiron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article is notable for one event. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would it be allowed/more appropriate to have a page regarding about the incident rather than one about the victim involved? Plastic Milk Bag (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different case! The event may be a subject of encyclopedia, if the event is notable per WP:NEVENT. You may want to read WP:Indentation.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have issues with the one event part of your argument. Someone can participate in one Olympics, in one event, say men's tennis, and win a silver medal. That is one event at one Olympics. Based on your rationale, that athlete is not wiki worthy. I would argue he was worthy. So, question is, even though it is one event, does that event make him worthy? Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, ensure to use the preview key before you save your comment. Nothing seemed to be notable about the subject of this article outside the "fire incident". Please read WP:BIO1E and this notability guideline. You may leave a message on my talk page if you need more clarification. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]