Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 22

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 Djurgårdens IF. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberget 4A

Alberget 4A (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 was created, deleted under

• Keep, this article was speedy deleted with reference to WP:G11, which says articles should not be promotion. The user who speedy deleted it has not been able to explain, what in the article it was which he deemed to be promotion. The article is not written for promotional purposes. Bandy boy (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Aftonbladet is the largest newspaper in Sweden and is mentioning the beer by its former name, which was still the name it had by then. Bandy boy (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete. I am leaning towards merge but it definitely does not meet the
  WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in independent sources so at the very least it should be merged. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Aftonbladet is the largest newspaper in Sweden and is an independent source. Bandy boy (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Djurgårdens IF - Not notable for a standalone article & Fails GNG, I couldn't care about Aftonbladet before I'm met with the same reply!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete. Not an individually notable product. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable by any reasonable standards. The beer is likely a
  rebadge of an existing beer, as is standard in these promotional cases. Beers named after sports clubs or even players are common, and while supporters of such clubs may be excited to have a beer named after their club or favourite, it is simply a marketing exercise to get the supporters to buy the beer, and is not in itself notable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep You can't base a delete vote on what might be "likely". Pågen Grip (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bull's Blood (hoax)

Order of the Bull's Blood (hoax) (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 hoax. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Even though this AFD page has "(3rd nomination)" in the title, this is actually the 4th discussion for this subject. Calathan (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of significance, let alone WP:N notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Confirmed as a hoax perpetrated by User:ColonelHenry. WCM_email 06:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Hoax created on purpose by a now banned user who admitted that it was a hoax in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the article itself is now not a hoax. See
  WP:HOAX, section "Hoaxes, versus articles about hoaxes": as it stands now, the article provides a neutral, properly sourced description of a hoax. We should treat this like any other article about a real-life incident, so the only real reason to delete is that the real-life incident isn't notable, since it doesn't appear to have any secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree. That's what I was trying to say in my nomination. It is a documented hoax, but a non-notable one. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt all entries. I did a search and ultimately the coverage here is fairly non-notable. The problem here is that even when it was believed to be a real thing, it really didn't get much coverage. After it became known as a hoax? That got zero attention. So here's the problem: the coverage it did get when it was believed to be real is kind of unreliable because it sort of shows that none of the papers did anything beyond saying "hey, here's a secret society!" and not really checking into it that much. A lot of the coverage stems from one incident of vandalism. Since we can obviously no longer redirect to Rutgers, we have to look at this on its own notability... which is lacking. We should probably salt all of the entries to prevent re-creation in the future.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – A
  hoax about a hoax? Well, that's something. (Also non-notable.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Maybe of local interest, but not notable enough to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A previous version (histmerged together) was copied to Talk:Rutgers University student organizations#Content for merge after WP:Articles for deletion/Order of the Bull's Blood, February 2009. If this article is deleted, that copy should be blanked and revision deleted (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material). Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for revision deletion. I've simply blanked it. — Scott • talk 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for blanking it. I plan to tag the 5 affected revisions with {{copyvio-revdel}} to be processed normally, which may be a decline. Revision deletion is used more readily than the old WP:Selective deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly don't think it's worth the effort. "Blatant copyright violations" applies to things far more serious than a small unattributed copy between articles, especially when the text has been deleted in both locations as a hoax. When addressing requests for revdel due to copyright violations I weigh up the size, duration, and visibility of the infringement - this is just too minor. — Scott • talk 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wovenwar

Wovenwar (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 my field, but I do not see how anything in this article indicates the band is notable. Their total work at this point is one youtube single. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The band has already received attention from
  Blabbermouth ([5]), Metal Hammer ([6], [7], [8]), MetalSucks ([9]) and Revolver Mag ([10]). Their connection with As I Lay Dying, and their signing to Metal Blade Records means that this band will generate a lot of media attention with very little music. Moswento ^talky 10:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should not be removed. This group was formed from two already famous bands. As it was suggested above, it has already received attention from rock and metal music press. Their fan base on Facebook is growing every singe day, as for 24 April their official page counts roughly 20 thousands fans from all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.157.30.29 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to meet
  WP:GNG. Whether they amount to much is still to be seen but no reason to remove. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The sources listed above need to be integrated into the article, but otherwise, definitely keep.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ymblanter (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCLR 2016 Wiki Version

MCLR 2016 Wiki Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This "article" is simply the full text of the proposed bill.

• Delete- It's basically the full text of a bill that hasn't even been passed yet (it happens to be about the legalization of pot, apparently). Wikipedia isn't a giant repository of political documents.

Edit: It's been deleted before as a copyvio, something to take into consideration.

Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy delete as a copyvio. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable and promotional. STATic message me! 03:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems the license under which this is (re) released after being deleted for copyvio is compatible with CC by SA and the GFDL. However as I explained to the author in my talk page, this is out of scope for the project. If anything it belongs in WikiSource. Beyond that, it's a "dump" of a
  inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCLR

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

)

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

There's no indication of notability and no references, and the entire article is written in an unencyclopedic tone. A quick Google search does bring up a few results, but I don't see anything to sufficiently indicate notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entire article is copied and pasted from the various sub-pages of http://www.marijuanacontrollegalizationrevenueact.com/what/ --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MCLR_2016_Wiki_Version --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 22:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not Delete: We are new to wikipedia. MCLR 2014 was an attempt to get adult use marijuana on the California Ballot. We had significant press coverage, but could not raise enough money for the 2014 ballot. We are moving forward with a 2016 initiative, and would like to document this on wikipedia. Thank you for your hard work to keep wikipedia accurate.--Morepot (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a
  WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article.--Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 04:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Also, by saying "we" you are implying that you have a
  shared account. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also as the person who did the initial sandbox copy and paste, and subsequent creative commons request to the people at MCLR 2014 in order to comply with fair use licensing...i request that anyone interested may contact me with additional recommendations to clean up this article to comply with standard wiki formatting, thanks again Ganjagreg (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In order to have an article about this, it must be
  significant coverage from independent reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case for this proposped initiative. Note to User:Ganjagreg and User:Morepot, this is not a social media site which you can use to promote your cause. This is an international encyclopedia, and the only articles we can have here are things that qualify to be an article in an encyclopedia. There are many places where you can promote your initiative and gather supporters (try Facebook), but Wikipedia isn't one of them. If it qualifies for the ballot at some time in the future, then it will (possibly) qualify for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janice M. Babiak

Janice M. Babiak (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 businessperson. I was unable to find any coverage that was not

• Delete - No evidence of notability. Bali88 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Huda Sha'arawi

Huda Sha'arawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There exists an article on the same subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huda_Shaarawi Staglit (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the wrong forum. Just redirect to the more developed article (and merge anything that may be missing from there). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and was
  BOLD, and have redirected and merged everything. It should be fixed now! Tazerdadog (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pliuskaitis

Michael Pliuskaitis (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)

Despite having nine footnotes at the bottom of the article, a cursory check of them reveals that only the banning-related sources actually focuses on the subject; the rest are passing mentions. Therefore, I contend that this article fails the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to be a pretty reasonable

WP:BLP1E deletion (and for a pretty routine E at that). The only thing weighing against deletion is he also had an almost notable court case against a board member of a swim club. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Clear (negative) BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coaching the Canadian national swimming team and being named national coach of the year seem like enough to show notability. I'll admit the only source I could find for these was in a legal document, but that seems valid enough.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, no, a legal document doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as a negative
  WP:WEIGHT on the negative details. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Crow

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

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

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable porn actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If we were judging just by the image I'd say Keep .... but sadly we dont!, So Delete as a non notable porn actor/model. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - She's really not a porn performer -- her "fame" is as a topless/nude model. I'm not saying she is or isn't worthy of an article, but it seems silly to base her notability on WP:PORNBIO when she's not a porn actress. Drpickem (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing the GNG. As noted above, the subject is not a porn/"adult" performer, but a "glamour" model, and there is no indication she meets any relevant SNG criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non Notable Glamour model. Finnegas (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English Contact Karate Association

English Contact Karate Association (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 subgroup of the English Karate Federation which itself does not have an article. Only source is its website and a link to its membership in the national organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources and no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage, merely appearing a list of member organizations. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bangladesh–Taiwan relations

Bangladesh–Taiwan relations (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)

Completely un-sourced and contradicts Bangladesh–China relations. No evidence of notability of relations between these countries. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• deleteActually, looking at it again, it is extremely innacurate and biased, and whould be needed to be re written anyway if teh articel would be staying. Staglit (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per nominating editor Bali88 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G3 - obvious misinformation. See eg [[11]] which directly contradicts the main assertion of this page. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there is a distinction between the PRC (China) and the ROC (Taiwan), and that the article is claiming that Bangladesh cannot officially recognize the ROC (Taiwan) as a Sovereign nation due to their diplomatic relationship with China (I agree that the wording of the article is unclear in this regard). That claim is unsourced and not notable enough for its own article, but not necessarily contradicted by your source. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On my reading, it claims exactly the opposite. "Bangladesh opted to recognise the ROC" with no indication that this position has changed. "Although Bangladesh does not recognise the PRC (therefore illegal to travel there with a Bangladeshi passport)" - saying that it is impossible for Bangladeshis to travel to the PRC (mainland China) because Bangladesh "does not recognise the PRC" - exactly the apposite of what you've said. I agree it's awkwardly worded, but AFAICT the reasonably plain meaning of it is false. On a side note, my home country doesn't recognise the ROC, either, but it hasn't stopped me travelling there. GoldenRing (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That second sentence was changed between when I first saw the article and when I finally got around to tagging and nominating it. I agree with you that the article is flat out wrong as it currently stands. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a notable diplomatic relationship requiring coverage beyond a brief mention in respective Foreign relations of X articles. Stalwart111 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreferenced and original research. created by an editor who is on a spreee of creating unreferenced bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It is underlinked and it does not contain any reference. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per misinformation concern. As of now the article content appears to be an opinion piece copied from this forum. -- SMS ^Talk 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not just a copy, but an altered copy - the wording is identical except for the reversal of China and Taiwan, e.g. "There is no choice available recognising both the PRC and ROC as legitimate nations, so Bangladesh opted to recognise the PRC" became "...so Bangladesh opted to recognise the ROC". Delete as deliberate misinformation. 123.121.226.9 (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nadia Bella

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

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

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per
  WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability. No reliable source coverage found in search. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as non notable porn actor. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Gene93k. No indications of any significance, let alone notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for Bir Tawil

Committee for Bir Tawil (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 can find no sources for this group whatsoever, but I'm bringing it here rather than using speedy or prod in the hope that somebody else can do it. ( I note our article on Bir Tawil gives a population of zero. See also Google Sightseeing DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I cannot find any sources under this name, or for any group with a similar name. Moswento ^talky 20:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not technically a ghost town nor a micronation, this may be a hoax. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

P.T.T. Easter

P.T.T. Easter (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)

Creator of non-notable direct-to-video films. Doesn't meet

• Speedy delete Recreation of article already deleted after
  WP:CSD#G4 applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Load Impact

Load Impact (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 meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep with a quick search on google, I can find several articles in newspapers and mentions about this company.Staglit (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pretty much
    irrelevant, because the article is not about the company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Mentions are not the same as significant coverage, as described on Wikipedia:Notability. If you found newspaper coverage, you should link it here to support your position.Dialectric (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I could not find substential coverage in reliable sources for this service. In fact there is a couple of mention in the niche press with questional reliability, which I would consider to amass to one source in terms of
  WP:GNG. There's also a CrunchBase profile page, but this source is building idescriminate collection of IT start ups, and the profile mostly discuss the company, not the service (which is the topic of this article). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article lacking significant independent coverage to establish notability - sources used in article are non-RS blogs or developer's sites; a search turned up more blogs ([12],[13]) but no significant RS coverage; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mongolia–Pakistan relations

Mongolia–Pakistan relations (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)

These two countries don't appear to have any notable relations beyond a statement from the President of Mongolia, and the entire article is a copyvio. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough for an article and copyvio. Bali88 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - G12 obvious copyvio. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable diplomatic relationship requiring coverage beyond a brief mention in respective Foreign relations of X articles. Stalwart111 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Quite likely a notable topic, but the current article is just a copyvio. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Benzale Guerrero

Elio Benzale Guerrero (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)

He still has not played in a

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT, remains non-notable, fails both
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Player has not played in
  GNG
  .
• Delete - I could only find routine coverage (e.g., match reports) on his exploits in the Dominican league; article doesn't satisfy our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Bolton

James C. Bolton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is 'filled out', but is based solely on one source (which can be found online here) and doesn't prove notability of subject. The article reads more like an obituary or a 'Who's Who' entry than an encyclopedia article. Attempts to find other sources online almost exclusively lead back to the library named for the subject. HOT WUK (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. HOT WUK (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I do not know Dictionary of Louisiana Biography, but I would suggest that a person selected for inclusion in such a work is notable. If notable there should be an article. The fact that the article relies on only one reliable source is no ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only having one reliable source is definitely grounds for deletion, as one source is not sufficient to indicate notability. Also, inclusion in some dictionary of biographies doesn't necessarily indicate notability; I could publish my own dictionary of biographies and include myself, but that wouldn't make me notable. Moreover, dictionaries of biographies tend to include huge amounts of people who aren't really actually notable by Wikipedia's standards. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough. Reads like a family bio. Kierzek (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he appeared to be unknown outside of his locaity. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The pocket guide to divorce

The pocket guide to divorce (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 book, with little apparant claim of significance. The sourcing is almost non-existant, and a quick google search was not encouraging. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Can't see much coverage on this. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not finding any reviews or coverage in secondary sources. Could possibly merge into Neil Connelly. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just CSD'd the same page by User:Mitch Higby with the same content. Please, someone, inform the class that Wikipedia is unacceptable social media.
  Please talk here 11:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd normally recommend a redirect, but the author's page also looks kind of dodgy as well. There's just no coverage for this book.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I cleaned up the author's page and found enough to justify an article for him. I also created a redirect with the proper capitalization, so there's no need to turn this into a redirect after it's deleted. On a side note, I can't help but wonder if this is copyvio due to its promotional tone. It could probably be speedied as promotional in any case.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Professional Kickboxing League

World Professional Kickboxing League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a defunct kickboxing organization that lacks independent sources. Even if the unsourced claims of having notable fighters compete in it is true, an organization's notability is not inherited from its members. My search did not turn up any significant independent coverage. Since it's not listed among the significant organizations at

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the significant coverage required by
  WP:GNG. I think the nominator's comments sum it up nicely. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Saxton (footballer)

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

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

Article about a footballer who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT, remains non-notable, fails both
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Player has not played in
  GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howling Wolf Productions

Howling Wolf Productions (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 that was previously speedied three times in the past two months for being a completely unsourced

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No proof of notability, lack of reliable sources. Bali88 (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN company.reddogsix (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. No evidence of notability. Pburka (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per failing
  return to sender. Simply put, while company does exist, and does receive bare mention-in-passing in reliable sources,[14][15] BUT bare mentions are all that can be found. As production company behind 7 films... 1 winner, 2 non-winners, and 4 in post-production... the awards of Guest House for the work of the cast and crew, does not indicate a notability for the company itself. Allow undeletion/recreation only when the company itself receives coverage AS a company. IF there were ever to be an article on founder Aaron Wolf, it might be mentioned there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hans Hess

Johannes Hans Hess (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 assertion of notability made save perhaps one of advanced age for the 16th century, and I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would provide evidence of notability. Still, historical figures sometimes rely to a greater degree on offline sources, so additional sources welcome, as always. j⚛e decker^talk 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and contemplate an A7 speedy. Personally, I wouldn't be generous enough to consider his lifespan an implicit claim of notability, and his relationship to Hans Jacob Hess is certainly not one. Speedy requirements notwithstanding, I don't see any appropriate sources here, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Absolutely no claim to notability in the article. Concur that this is probably a good A-7 CSD candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - A lifespan of more than 95 years is very rare, even today. And plenty of independent sources about him, even online. My friend (a direct patrilineal descendant) has some papers on him. Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have other sources that might help establish notability you should add them. I couldn't find any and right now this article still looks like a good A-7 candidate to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent online sources. http://www.geni.com/people/Johannes-Hess/6000000022865365212 http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/e/s/David-Eugene-Hess/GENE2-0001.html http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/e/s/David-Eugene-Hess/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0089.html http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/hess/pats http://www.reocities.com/judys-space/Vol2/hesse.htm http://www.crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol2/hesse.htm

• Family-contributed genealogy resources do not meet the projects requirements for
  reliable sources. Unfortunately, none of these websites would be considered independent and reliable for the purposes of this article. Also, Wikipedia uses the word "WP:Notability" as a term of art referring to the threshold of coverage necessary for inclusion. This subject's claimed age during the era he lived in may be rare or distinctive or even interesting, but those characteristics do not make him notable, as the term is used here. As a separate problem, adequate and reliable documentation for longevity claims before the 20th century (and, often, even then) is generally not considered to exist; it is impossible to distinguish legitimately long-lived 16th century people from spurious claims of long life (of which there are many). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep - I'd imagine finding sources dating back 460 years ago is going to be pretty hard, The source so far isn't perfect but it's better than nothing, So I say Keep & Try improving more sources. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you see the notability justifying a "strong keep?" As far as I can tell there is nothing here beyond evidence that he existed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This guy did nothing of note. He was the some-great-grandfather of a notable person, that is it. I am all for keeping articles on historic people, Wikipedia is far too presentist, but this guy is totally not notable. He did nothing, held no positions, as far as I can tell wrote nothing, advocated no phylosopy or idea, he is totally unnotable. Living to be 95 has been a lot less than remarkable for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Living to be 97 is a big deal today, and was an even bigger deal in the 1500s, when the life expectancy was about 40. Given that most sources about him are likely to be print or handwritten sources in foreign languages, I think the best approach is to keep the article and try to expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewTrierLeaks (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC) — NewTrierLeaks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Being rare, interesting, or a "big deal" isn't the same as being
  notable. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There is nothing in the article to suggest that any significant independent sources will be found. We don't even have a reliable source for the fact that he lived to 97 - could be the result of a typo somewhere along the line. Even if it's not, where is the evidence that people in the C16th wrote about other people just because of their age? Moswento ^talky 10:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a compelling argument. If sources are found, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Take a look at Oldest people. None of the people in that list have done anything significant or noteworthy - other than living for a long, long time. As has been said above, while living to be 97 may not be a huge deal today, living to be 97 in an era when the average lifespan was about 40 is nothing short of remarkable. And, it's not terribly surprising that sources from that era (roughly 500 years ago) are not available online! Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remarkable" is not the same as "something that multiple independent reliable sources have been written about". Nowadays, very old people are the subject of human interest newspaper stories. They didn't have human interest newspaper stories in the 16th century. Notable people from the past have generally been written about at least a few times centuries after their death. There is no evidence that this is the case with this chap. Moswento ^talky 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Badly sourced article lacking any indication that this is a person of historical interest. As for the claimed age at death, two of the web pages linked above appear to be honest enough to represent the birth year of Johannes/Hans and the following three generations as nothing more than estimates, but not even these pages clarify how these (estimated) dates were calculated. As far as any of us can tell, this Johannes/Hans (who was almost certainly never called "Johannes Hans") may well have been born a decade or two later than 1458. --Hegvald (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the date is not an estimate. It is because usually only birthyears, nor birthdates, were recorded at the time MrCorve (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) — MrCorve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do you have a reliable source for his birth year? Or, better, multiple independent reliable sources about him? Moswento ^talky 07:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All of this debate about his age is irrelevant. Even if age was somewhere in
  sock puppetry. That's a huge no no around here and can get an editor blocked or even banned. Just saying... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup

2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Too soon? this is not for another 9 years. Wgolf (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not yet notable. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per
  WP:TOOSOON. There are already references about this that some quarters are getting ready for this already. –HTD 14:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No evidence that this is a notable subject, probably because it will not happen for nine years.- MrX 14:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What exactly is the applicable policy on events like this one? We do have articles about the Olympics as far away as 2028, and the World Cup as far away as 2026, after all. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. If we have
    WP:RS that people are getting ready for this already, it's good to go. Right now, FIBA apparently has sent notices to its members that bidding is open.This November, we'd already have notices on which countries will be bidding for the 2023 world cup. That's just months from now. One can say, based on policy, that once either notices have been sent (right now) or bids have been received (this November) can this article be viable. Take your pick. –HTD 09:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment-Yeah the Olympic ones I can understand-but this on the other hand is not as notable as the Olympics. World Cup in 2026 seems questionable, but since that isn't that big in the US-I don't get the point then. Still this seems too soon. Maybe in a couple years. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Kang Jun Ho

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

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

This article doesn't make it clear whether this person is in fact an artist or just a fan of K-pop. There's a mass of references, but I can't see their relevance. Slashme (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nominator: After nominating the page for deletion, I discovered that there had previously been a request for speedy deletion, which was removed by the author. I also see now that this page was moved into the main article space from userspace, so it really should just go ASAP. --Slashme (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per my original nomination under {{db-person}}: no indication of notability, the music list does just seem to be the subject's favourite music. I have replaced the speedy tag on the page as it was removed by the page's author.  GILO   A&E⇑ 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11, spambot word salad. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which Created the Game of Football

Which Created the Game of Football (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)

Very difficult to identify the subject of the article; given sources do not relate or verify any of the prose. Possibly

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lauffer

Doug Lauffer (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 assertion of notability. Slashme (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator: Comment: This is a self-created page which is essentially someone's CV. I don't see anything in it which even claims notability according to
  WP:PROF. --Slashme (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Striking delete vote -- nomination is already considered to be a vote for delete. (it doesn't look like it will matter either way though). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 16:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 16:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Entirely self-sourced, complete with trademarked catchphrase and signature. No evidence of passing
  WP:CSD#G11 as unambiguous self-promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No sign of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per all above. I wish we could had a CSD for "resume", but we do not...Tazerdadog (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Echoing "resume" sentiment: not an encyclopaedia article. Fylbecatulous talk 21:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: same as what everyone else is saying, nothing of importance. Surprise it has been here so long. Wgolf (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mršić

Simon Mršić (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 yet notable per

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the claim that he played in a fully pro league is not verified and he has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Player has not played in
  GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Philippe Mouzon

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

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

The article has a very

• Delete - No evidence of notability. Bali88 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - claim to notability seems to be one appearance in Lethal Weapon and relationship to various family members - this is not enough. GoldenRing (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per GoldenRing, can't find any reliable sources about him. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. While I did some thorough rewriting, there is no indication of notability at all for him.
  talk) 18:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhill Christian School

Oakhill Christian School (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)

Procedural nomination. An IP address prodded the article, and keeps removing text and tagging it, apparently for

• Delete The school is not notable. Period. It is not a high school. It's a K-12 school, with an enrollment of 68 in all 13 grades. In 2010 it had 7 graduates. There are no reliable sources that establish any sort of
  notability, over and above it being an average, run-of-the-mill tiny, unknown school. Bearian added a source
  that not only fails verification for the sentence it supposedly supports, but says nothing whatsoever about the school. (It consists merely of the school's name in a list.) He also added a trivial, unencyclopedic sentence about the school having received some hand-me-down computers from the federal government, apparently in a weak effort to establish notability.

Bearian has been quick on the draw to label me a vandal. He placed a vandalism warning on my talk page because I prodded the article. And I have never vandalized Bearian's talk page. He has called my honest efforts to stop his removal of legitimate templates from the article without fixing the underlying problems "vandalism". I asked him to stop this scurrilous practice, but he's here doing it again.

And stop calling me "an IP" in an attempt to disparage my edits.

IPs are editors. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Oakhill Christian School has a high school. High schools are considered to be notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it's a high school (as well as elementary school), it demonstrably exists, so its Wikipedia article exists. No problem. (I'm a bit worried by Bearian's deleted comments on the IP talk page which suggest that if it wasn't in the USA or wasn't Christian there might be more grounds for deleting it...!) And note that the University pdf link, which the IP says proves nothing, does in fact include the school in a list of high schools invited to take part in a science fair - ie shows that an external body considers it to be a high school. PamD 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Let's not cherry-pick our guidelines.
  WP:NHS also says: "Merely claiming to enroll teenagers or containing the words 'high school' in its name is not enough for a school to be given a separate, stand-alone article." 71.139.142.132 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG which is more important than any secondary notability guidelines. Secret ^account 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per longstanding consensus for treatment of schools, in which high schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. THIS confirms existence as a high school. It does not matter if the high school is large or small, public or private, secular or sectarian. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite being a deletionist, I have generally agreed with the "all high schools are notable" arguments of the past. However, I'm not finding this one to be terribly convincing thus far. That a K-12 private school teaches a handful (at best) of 14-18 yr olds does not grant it entry into the "automatic HS notability club IMO. Second, a relevant part of Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) is " To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body." From what I see so far, this school should be accredited by the WRISA (Wisconsin Religious and Independent Schools Accreditation), but it does not appear on their list. According to the school's contact info and the church's contact info, the two share the same physical address and even the same phone number. Honestly, what this appears to be is a small bible school largely for the church members, nothing more. If this bears out, I think the keep votes cast thus far should reconsider. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I haven't mentioned the rationale behind the Consensus on Schools lately and will do so now. The Consensus on Schools is a two part proposition that represents a compromise between deletionists seeking a concise encyclopedia and inclusionists seeking in an expansive encyclopedia: (1) Elementary schools are presumed non-notable, barring demonstration of extraordinary additional circumstances; (2) High schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable per se. The reasoning is that a good biography will include mention of a high school but not of elementary schools. These links should be blue, not red. High schools also typically have associated sports teams, dramatic activities, band activities, and so forth that generate news coverage; and their construction, opening, administrative changes, and decommissioning are matters of coverage in the local press. Elementary schools, on the other hand, generally generate far less such coverage. These articles are redirected to the article on the school board responsible for them. Rather than fighting over whether to include or remove thousands of articles on schools at AfD, something which would bog down the works incredibly, the very simple Consensus on Schools has evolved. It is not a formal policy, but it is a de facto guideline, adhered to by 98%+ of closing administrators over the years. It's a rational solution and one that I and others very much support. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a small school, with the online sources stating an enrollment of around 70. However, it's big enough to have sports teams receiving substantial coverage in state media (e.g. [16][17][18] and many more similar stories), and big enough for the Army to give it a bunch of used computers as part of its Computers for Learning program [19]. Under our usual precedents I think this suffices. I'll also take this opportunity to express my agreement with Carrite's explanation about why the consensus is a good thing, and I'll add that I think high school articles provide an positive starting point for new editors to try their hand at editing on a subject they know about: yes, we get a lot of unconstructive edits in school articles, but we also get a lot of constructive ones.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add:

West Point. The article notes that the school had at that point been around for 35 years, and that the school's basketball team had won the Wisconsin Association of Christian Schools state title three years in a row. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Clarify:The linked High Beam article was about one of its students, not about the school. It also mentioned that the school had a graduating class of two. Besides, a single article is not "significant coverage". 71.139.142.132 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd feel a lot better about these assertions of consensus if you could point to a policy, guideline, or talk page discussion as evidence. Even then,
  consensus can change. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It is a stub article which has 3 independent sources. That already complies with
  WP:GNG; at the very least we should give editors a chance to flesh it out and add further sources as needed. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Correction: The article has 2 sources, the
  reliability of one being in doubt. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Counter-correction: Wrong. I am including the two external links. That makes four sources/refs of which one is not independent. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:GNG says that 3 independent sources that verify existence and one brief, local piece about a laptop donation constitutes notability? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  07:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete Clearly a non notable school. Yes these type of schools can be notable, however this one fails our
  General Notability Guideline by a country mile. School notability guidelines do not notability guidelines do not overrule GNG, they are simply a presumption that secondary schools should be able to meet GNG. This one cant.Blethering Scot 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - FWIW, it passes my own standards. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because it is a small school with few sources for it does not mean that it isn't notable.
  talk) 20:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep If this is teaching up to (at least) 16, this is a High School; and the accepted view is that they are all notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From
  WP:NHS, as already quoted above, "To be considered a genuine high school/secondary school, the school must either be a public school (i.e. a municipal or government school) or a private school that is authorised by a recognised accreditation body." So even if more than existence could be determined by independent secondary sources, it may not qualify as a "high school." When I was a kid I knew a homeschooling family who half-jokingly referred to their home as the "[street they lived on] school." To hear the way people are talking about the notability of high schools, if a local homeschooling magazine mentioned this "school," and it happened to be home to a 9th grader, it would be on Wikipedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep WP:IAR, WP:POINT WP:NPASR 
  WP:SK#1: "the nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion".  XfD is not an RfC biased with a !vote to delete and without an argument for deletion.  WP:POINT: Nominator stipulates in the nomination that the topic is notable, and then !votes to delete.  Stating that this is somehow procedural has no standing, the nom is still a !vote to delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I was thinking this might be a borderline case until I saw Arxiloxos' links to high school basketball game scores, such as this. This proves that they have at least 6 boys in high school which refutes some of the earlier arguments about it having very few students at a high school level. Royalbroil 03:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems no compelling reason to delete; the reasons given here seem to be either (a) it's small (not a sufficient reason for deleting IMO) or (b) "it fails to meet the GNG" without stating any reasoning as to why they think it fails the guideline and the sources given in the article are insufficient. Even the nominator doesn't seem to want the article deleted. WaggersTALK 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above - Schools are notable whether we like it or not. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a high school who's existance is confirmed with sources and that has been mentioned in local newspapers. That's enough for a school for me. Chuy1530 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Secret and Tarc. GNG supersedes any more specific guidelines or consensus. Yes, public schools are clearly notable, we've established that through consensus and the availability of secondary sources. There is no such consensus or possibility of a similar blanket approach to non-public schools, otherwise we will have articles for every storefront charter school, regardless of the availability of reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a high school. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet
  WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or preferably merge and redirect to the city's section on education because we don't have significant coverage of the school itself in third-party reliable sources, which is required by the policy at
  home school, and without independent sources, we can't actually write a balanced article. We should no more keep this article than we should keep one on "WhatamIdoing's Ballet High School". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I have yet to see a single call to keep this article address a concern I raised regarding accreditation. For those that may have missed it, I will again point to this clause in
  general notability guide, but thus far only brief blurbs about sporting event scores and a laptop giveaway have been unearthed. This is far below the GNG standard of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thankfully AfDs are not head counts, and the eventual closing admin will note that the claims that the GNG is met ring hollow, and that the "it is a High School, therefore keep" are false, as it fails the HS guide. Thus far, this is a slam-dunk deletion. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Agree completely with Tarc. Putting aside the speedy keeps, which seem moot given the extensive debate that has taken place (speedy keep followed by an immediate, differently phrased AfD seems pointless), there is one keep argument that argues a stub article with three sources satisfies the GNG (which I don't agree with), but each and every one of the others relies on the existence of a school being a trump card to all other policies. In the essay for the exception it explains that existence alone isn't actually enough and that in order to count in the first place it must be government-run or otherwise accredited. As Tarc points out, this hasn't even been established -- so the exception (which isn't actually an exception), does not even apply. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to belabor the issue, but I think that a school with an active interscholastic athletics program covered in newspapers (including state championships), with multiple references that show it is regarded as a bona fide school (that was forty computers they got from the military, not one or two), should and does meet the standard for being treated as a bona fide school. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see it as belaboring, I see it as a point that should be addressed. Coverage of local sports is routine, and a donation of computers is a nice gesture, but neither provides coverage of the subject itself as called for by the
        WP:GNG. They are simple stories that say "X happened at Y school on Z date". If we were talking about a person here, such coverage would be deemed trivial, or the proverbial "name-dropping". You also speak of a "bona fide" school, but I have pointed out a clause in Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) that this "school" explicitly fails to meet; it is not accredited. Both of those link are guidelines, not policy, and guidelines can be set aside for a greater need. But I have yet to see an argument put forth to do that. It does not meet the qualifications for this "we all kinda agreed that all high schools are notable" side dela that people allude to. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • I would also like to point out that
        WP:ORG specifically quotes "the season schedule or final score from sporting events" as a form of coverage that is to be considered trivial. The articles written present very little beyond what a stat page would provide. If you're looking for this to pass GNG on its own legs, I think the case is fairly weak. Realistically, you need to take our stance on other HS pages into account. Sasquatch t|c 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • "Final score" to me would mean a line-item in a list of scores, not a substantial article actually covering the game. And there's still the matter of those state championships--common sense tells me that a school that contends in a league of high schools is likely to be a real school. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • My usual interpretation is if a news article presents no more information than a box score would, I would not consider that deep coverage. None of the articles linked even show that a reporter was at the game. They've simply taken a stat page provided to them and regurgitated it in a sentence. On any other page, I highly doubt you would call this non-trivial coverage. But that's my interpretation. Sasquatch t|c 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-see no problem with this article-it seems to be notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of accreditation. Both the Wisconsin Educational Approval Board and Tarc's post raise some interesting issues about whether or not this school actually passes
  WP:ORG based off merely relisting stats off of a scorepage in a full sentence. The military computer donation is the only piece that I would consider enough to squeak by as a reliable third party source, but even then, it doesn't impart any sense of notability for the school other than they applied for a program and got it... Doesn't really show anything about academics or qualities of school that are worth reporting on. In lieu of evidence of accreditation (heck, even the Wisconsin Association of Christian Schools no longer lists them), I see no meaningful content to keep. If someone can prove otherwise, I will gladly swap my vote. Sasquatch t|c 23:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetTradeX

NetTradeX (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)

Appears to fail

• Comment. I can't even tell if this is an article about the corporation or the software. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I still can't quite tell what whether subject of this article is the company or the product, but my Google searches have convinced me that neither are notable. This is specialized software that would not be given coverage by mainstream computing publications, but I would at least expect the company to show up somewhere outside of press releases. As far as I can tell, it does not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks like NetTradeX is a currency trading software platform, developed by NetTradeX corp, which is supported/owned by IFC Markets [20]. While the software has been covered at places like CNet and Investing.com, the contents are simply company supplied descriptions and feature lists. Similarly, articles at Reuters and PRWeb are simply press releases. I was unable to find any independent reliable sources for this product. Without independent RS, this article fails notability per
  WP:GNG and cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Whether the article is about the company or the product, it fails
  WP:PRODUCT based on available reliable sources that cover the subject in any depth.- MrX 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of heavy equipment equivalents

List of heavy equipment equivalents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not convinced about the encyclopedic value of this list. Moswento ^talky 12:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lists of equipment models for individual manufacturers are accepted as uncontroversial facts, including for some of the same manufacturers mentioned in this stub, with examples at
  userfy it. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I'm not sure I would agree that the
    turboencabulator in your example, though. As an old engineer, I'm glad to see this bit of kerfuffle is still around. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Guam

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

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

This article is essentially original synthesis. The lead acknowledges, in fact, that racism is not particularly prevalent, and then the article appeals to a couple of incidents in which accusations of racism were made. There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is really a thing. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the incidents are by any means notable, they might be included in the article Guam itself. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 12:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:POVFORK. No need to create a separate home for this content. aprock (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: (
  WP:NOTABLE. Merge would be an option per Fauzan above, but that's only if the stuff could be verified as being worth a mention, which it isn't from what I'm seeing. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]