Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 18

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no other recommendations for deletion. Non-admin closure.

Choudhry Muhammad Yousaf

Choudhry Muhammad Yousaf (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)

BLP that has been unsourced for nearly 3 years. Either a userfy or a delete IMO. Wgolf (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Former minister in a territorial government. Easily enough for notability under
  WP:POLITICIAN #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added a single source, so the article no longer qualifies for deletion through the
  WP:BLPPROD process. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep article is a stub, but as a former state minister he satisfies
  WP:POLITICIAN.-- danntm ^T _C 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. As a former minister of state, it clearly satisfy
  talk) 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdrawn-I misread what this was I just thought it was saying he was just a educator and thats it. sorry. Wgolf (talk) 18:11, 20 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALR Piranha

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

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

Just a study, never realistic plans to build a plane. The Banner talk 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it Yes it was "just aproject" and the aircraft was never built. But it was a real project. It was the last project of an swiss fighter aircraft after the
  Lockheed CL-1200 Rockwell X-30 North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218
  . If the ALR Piranha has to be deletet all other aircraftprojects would have deletet too. It was a project yes, but the build a cockpit 1:1 layout, the mad differen tests on windtunnel modells, they thested flightcharacteristics on raido controled scale models, the had plans for special HAS shelters for it.. so its not just a few drawings.

• Keep. It was a serious project and was written about in more than one reliable source. Just because a project is not completed does not make the project itself unworthy of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The general standard used for not-built projects by WikiProject Aircraft is found here and says "Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball articles about aircraft that have not yet been built are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project is likely to come to fruition, or it is a project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft." This project doesn't make that criteria as neither organization involved is an established aircraft manufacturer. This might instead be redirected to, and mentioned in, Swiss Air Force instead. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt. Yes it was a project but if you say this has to be deleted then whe have to put all this ones

• • Comment: Not at all, because those proposed and not-built projects you listed were all done by established aircraft manufacturers, not by a university and non-notable company, neither of which had manufactured an aircraft before. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt You have to see the relation you can't expect uch ig aircraft manufacturr like in the USA. The ETH is not an aircraft manufacturer (but also the ZAGI in Russia not but the ZAGI worked for MiG, Sukhoi Tuploev ,..) so i think a famous aircraft building company is not the only important point for the question if an aircraftproject should be here on wikipedia. The ETH was involved also in the construction of real AC like SB-2 & P-16

• • Comment: That exactly illustrates my point, it was just an aircraft design project proposal from a non-notable company that had never built aircraft like this and it never went past proposal stage. There was little risk it would ever be built. It is all non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt. But only keeping projects of big companys on wikipedia seems for me not a good point. We ave here not a big aircraft company but the ETH , the ALR company the Swiss air Force and such Persons like George Bridel al this partners worked together for this project and each of this partners had worked in one or an other way on projects before and on real Aircraft Sb-2, N-20 P-16. And each of them are still active in the aivatic industrie. the ETH and the ALR had been also working at the actual Solarimpulse2 HB-SIB. Why should a project of an big aircraftbuilder bee more important than of a group of smale partner who are not in general aircraftbuilder but share theyer work for such a project. Also it is said that SAAB had bought parts of the project for the later SAAB Gripen [3]. BTW not bad for such an "unimportant"project if you get it not only as hand made wooden modell but also as plastic kit [4] ;-)

@Ahunt this articels exist to on wikipedia and aren't from big wellknown aircraftcompanys,(in my eyes): no prof that this was realy builtAlekseyev I-212,was never finished Belyayev Babochka and Bartini A-57.

• Keep: While the article is a bit of a mess at the moment, there does appear to be a fair amount of coverage in Reliable Sources. As well as the sources listed above (and there is substantial coverage (~3/4 page if I remember correctly) in at least one edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft, I have also found two reasonably substantial articles in the magazine Air International:
  • "The Light Fighter Market...and a European proposal". Air International. 18 (2): 77–81. February 1980.
  • Walters, Brian (November 1992). "Jäger Light: A project a decade too early". Air International. 43 (5): 257–259.

Coverage of the project, which reached wind tunnel and free-flight scale model testing, and according to the 1992 article was almost selected for license production in an unstated Middle East country, does appear to meet

WP:GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: there certainly is work to be done, but several much worse articles are not questioned. There are sources and references, there is some imagery, what more could one want? Above all, I am concerned about the people that put a lot of effort into this article and now are threatened with all of that being thrown away. Their work deserves respect and appreciation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not a Crystal Ball doesn't apply as we are not talking about vague future plans, but an actual project that existed (and which saw significant work done). Just because it wasn't by an established company doesn't deny it notability.NiD.29 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't dispute the fact that the article still needs much work but it does satisfy the notability criteria. Let's not forget the principle of
  talk) 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So, you think that a project out of the 1970s, eventually will delivered a flying plane? The Banner talk 15:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the point.NiD.29 (talk) 01:44, 21 September 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) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Jackson (American football)

Jerome Jackson (American 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)

First, Jackson has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable per
  WP:NCOLLATH, no evidence of notability. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Subject does not meet
  talk) 15:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable.--Yankees10 03:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• DeletePer above and fails
  WP:NGRIDIRON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per
  WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage, trivial mentions, and mish-mash of coverage from non-independent sources like student newspapers, or non-reliable sources like blogs, fansites, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 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) 13:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mathews (American football)

Greg Mathews (American 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)

First, Matthews has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass

• Keep I am the article creator. Ex-post, my time might have been better spent on other subjects, but I still think this passes
  WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As a Michigan football follower, I've nominated this with reluctance (as well as a couple others), but I'm just not seeing the coverage that would cause Matthews to pass GNG. Happy to reconsider if such coverage can be located. Cbl62 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Tony's comment, I checked the Michigan football statistics archive here to see if there was information that would cause me to reconsider. The data actually tends to confirm my original opinion on Mathews' lack of notability. He never had a 100-yard receiving or multiple touchdown game, had a grand total of six touchdowns over four seasons, never received any All-American, All-Big 10, or even team honors, and accumulated only 409 receiving yards in his best season at Michigan. Cbl62 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, Cbl: the subject was lining up at wide receiver, not tight end, for four years, right? Is this a

WP:NHSPHSATH situation, where the subject got a lot of recruiting hype coverage pre-college and notability was based primarily on his high school career? If so, possible application of the general notability guidelines regarding his high school career is superseded by the tougher standards for high school athletes per WP:NHSPHSATH. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

My understanding, confirmed by his Mgoblue bio, is that Mathews played principally at the wide receiver position, not at tight end. Don't know anything about his high school career, but I'm not finding sufficient coverage of any kind to satisfy GNG. Willing to reconsider if such coverage can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A web search didn't turn up anything that would make him notable per
  WP:ROUTINE coverage there is of his college games. I would reconsider if other sources turn up. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete lacks in depth coverage necessary for
  WP:NGRIDIRON.-- danntm ^T _C 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, with caveat. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per
  WP:NHSPHSATH. What I am not finding is significant coverage in mainstream sports and news publications, i.e. more than recruiting websites or two or three random sentences in post-game coverage, but there is a lot of clutter through which to sort. If someone can show me two or three feature articles about the subject from mainstream publications (i.e. not blogs, not recruiting services, not fansites, etc.), I would reconsider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I took a look at on-line sources before nominating and could not find much in the way of significant coverage. The best I found was a couple pieces, both local coverage, from The Ann Arbor News here and here. I also searched the archives of The Detroit News here and the Detroit Free Press here and found no feature stories on Mathews. If more and better coverage can be found, I'd reconsider as well. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete same reasons as others.--Yankees10 03:14, 23 September 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) 13:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Obomese

Alex Obomese (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)

First, Obomese has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 23:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. He was drafted a couple times but never played. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable college football player for mid-major program. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per
  WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 22 September 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. With Eastern Front (disambiguation) moved to Eastern Front after deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front

Eastern Front (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)

Same reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Front. "Eastern front" just describes a fronts relative geography. There have been many fronts called "eastern" in history. This article is about only two of them. It is completely unreferenced and just summarises two other articles on the World War fronts. Eastern Front (disambiguation) should be moved to this title. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason I voted delete at Western Front. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator makes a valid argument that the term is too vague to be defined precisely. Sources like this one refer to WW2 but sources like this one refer to the Eastern front in Ukraine. Further, Wikipedia already has a disambiguation page here at
  original research. If there is new material in the current article that is not included in other Wikipedia articles, perhaps it could be added to the other articles?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 22 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Tunney

Justine Tunney (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 subject appears to me to be

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- In the grand scheme of things, Justine isn't very notable. She's a private citizen whose visibility has come mainly from being attacked publicly for her views in some vicious gossip blogs and tabloid rags, and that's about it. As such her Wikipedia article mirrors the tone of the sources about her, and it's not pretty. This article is mostly an extended attack against her, which easily falls afoul of
  WP:BLP, and should thus be deleted. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - The "grand scheme of things" is not Wikipedia's notability standard, it is coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, which is definitely fulfilled here. Occupy Wall Street was a historically significant event. Tunney has argued that she was the hidden leader behind the scenes of Occupy Wall Street; whether that is true or not I do not know, but that is what she claims. In any case, the article is clearly not mostly about that event. She is also notable for getting into a public argument with her former compatriats in OWS, and for her political opinions post-OWS. The Advocate is not a "gossip blog" or "tabloid rag". Neither is the Daily Telegraph! If no-one has written anything positive about Tunney's petition to make Eric Schmidt CEO of America, which even Tunney herself has admitted was "silly", then of course the article is not going to portray it in a positive way. I have acknowledged twice in the article the possibility, as discussed in a reference, that Tunney may be a troll rather than a sincere right-winger, but even this comes off as negative, so I can't win. If you have any suggestions about how to rewrite the article to make it more neutral, please feel free to edit the article. Update! Thanks to information contained in Tunney's own internet postings, I have found coverage of yet another event she was involved in, and added that to the article. Also, I think that Anarkinsey is abusing this deletion venue as a means to badger me into deleting bits of the article s/he doesn't like, as s/he admits that Tunney "may" be notable.--greenrd (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – That the article is seriously flawed was the whole point of proposing this AfD. I assure you that I wasn't trying to badger you into anything (please
  WP:BASIC. Anarkinsey (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK, but in the petition incident, she is not merely mentioned in passing. Not only is she notable for that, it surely deserves some kind of award for ass-kissing - I've never heard of any other American proposing their employer's CEO as President-For-Life. I mean, it's not just notable, it's an interesting and surprising (not to mention hilarious) incident too.--greenrd (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails

wp:gng. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The first reason for deletion lacks specificity - fails BLP how? The second reason for deletion basically defies common-sense. If there were no significant coverage, I wouldn't have been able to write the long solidly-sourced article that I did.--greenrd (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  WP:BLP1E requires that all three condition be met, but #2 and #3 clearly fail. #2 fails because she is not a low profile person. #3 fails because the event was significant and well covered nationally and internationally. There is no doubt that she has received significant and in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I am One of Many (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep To be a notable living person, you need sources talking about the person. She has that met just from the Occupany website, so the article should be kept. The article does need some work. Frmorrison (talk)

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, without prejudice to moving. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Doyle (disambiguation)

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

)

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

Contested speedy, decided to by-pass prod and take it to AFD. This does not really disambiguate more than one primary and one secondary meaning, so is unnecessary. PatGallacher (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move - Another editor has suggested moving Gemma Doyle to Gemma Doyle (politician) as it is not a primary topic. In which case this page will be needed to distinguish between the politician and the literary character, and moved to Gemma Doyle. This is Paul (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this should be moved to Gemma Doyle, there are three entries on the page. "Gemma Doyle" can be moved to Gemma Doyle (politician) -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a move discussion at
  MOS:D guidelines for a dab as it is. Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 19 September 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. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime

Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime (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)

You shouldn't be naming someone on Wikipedia for their alleged involvement in a crime when they haven't been convicted, as per the policy

REBUTAL: This individual was fired by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia due to his involvement. This has been reported in the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

Delete Where to start with this page? The title is completely not NPOV. The page itself exists purely to disparage an individual accused of a crime, no attempt shown to be NPOV and is written very tabloid news style and wikipedia is not the news. Potentially speedy under G10 as an attack page. Cowlibob (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete / REBUTAL: ***The page is discussing a current news event. While it may highlight the negative actions of some of those who were active in the event, it should not be deleted because of that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

• Delete The subject of the article itself--the (alleged) physical assault against two gay men in Philadelphia--has not shown the requisite
  WP:NPOV violations I can remember--serving to associate the high school with a criminal act.-- danntm ^T _C 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Do NOT Delete If you can think of a better title, please rename it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

'Do NOT Delete' / REBUTAL: Hate crimes committed in 2014 in a major U.S. city are newsworthy. Period.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Numerous errors with the article--Futeb00l (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of four places the
  WP:SPA has put this material in an apparent attempt to smear the school (two in userspace, this article, and the article about the school). This is the worst of the four as it identifies one of the supposed perpetrators by name. It's horrific, but we're not a news outlet. We have severe BLP and NPOV issues. If the topic has extensive and long=lasting coverage it can be covered then, but in a more appropriate manner. Meters (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Do NOT Delete / REBUTAL: The alleged perpetrator has been named in multiple sources, and was fired by his employer for his participation in the incident. Please read the references attached to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

• • Note that the article has already been speedied once. Meters (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete / REBUTAL: The article was speeded once either out of error or due to the perpetrators or their friends trying to remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is not anymore notable than any other violent attacks that happened in the same week in the United States. It does not conform to WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE and does not even pretend to be NPOV. Orasis (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's lasting effects guideline says that an event is notable if it "act(s) as a precedent or catalyst for something else" including legislation. Because of this anti-gay assault, a Philadelphia law maker is going to try to make anti-gay assaults a gay crime. Currently, in Pennsylvania, there is no special protection on the basis of someone's sexual orientation or gender identity (only racial minorities are protected). I wrote about this on the article's talk page (which WIkipedia isn't letting me link to because of the weird three apostrophes that are part of the title at the end…) because I don't think I should like to the sources on this page(?). If this article somehow doesn't get deleted, the title of the article needs to be changed.-12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't link to the talk page because of the three apostrophes in the title problem, I'll post what I wrote there:

This crime is notable because it may cause the state of Pennsylvania to enact new legislation that protects people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Currently, there is no hate crime protection for gay people in Pennsylvania, there is only protection for racial minorities ("ethnic intimidation").

• http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Pa_law_Center_City_assault_on_gay_men_not_a_hate_crime.html
• http://phillynow.com/2014/09/17/gay-bashing-not-defined-as-hate-crime-in-pennsylvania/
• http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Why-Gay-Couple-Beating-is-Not-a-Hate-Crime-275631451.html
• http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/09/18/gay-bashing-hate-crime-pennsylvania-petition/

See Wikipedia's lasting effects notability guideline. ("Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation.") If this is an inappropriate place for me to write this, please feel free to delete what I've written. -12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the main problem is NPOV, can someone fix the language so that it is more neutral and therefore doesn't have to be deleted? -12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of a precedent or catalyst for something else: Sometimes it is notable (Boston Tea Party), but sometimes it's not. Also, a change in Pennsylvania legislation is only a proposal, hasn't gotten any more attention than the incident, and may not even rise to Wikipedia notability even if passed; some states have specific hate crime laws, and some don't. --Closeapple (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  POV pushing extends to what seems like a premeditated rush to defame one specific person by name as far and irrevocably as possible, in case that individual is cleared or otherwise not destroyed to the advocates' satisfaction later. If the article is kept, there is no harm in referring to the person by description and relationship with the school, rather than by identifiable name, and then adding the name later if the person is named by police, indicted, or holds a press conference. But forcing the name onto Wikipedia, the 5th-most-visted site on the web, makes it harder to undo the effect; claiming that less-attended media sites are doing it too is not an excuse, particularly as it is based on leaks by unnamed sources. --Closeapple (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow / IAR delete per Closeapple. In particular we are not news, not a soapbox, the alleged crime is not notable, and it names people who have not been convicted. Moreover the POV-pushing, great wrong-righting. Even if a good article could be written the present one is not a suitable basis for it. BethNaught (talk) 10:15, 19 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sundunes Condo Complex

Sundunes Condo Complex (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. I can find zero sources that suggest notability, and the article cites among its sources "Anonymous primary sources". Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:LOCAL (and yes, I know that's an essay not a policy or guideline). There are over 325,000 condo complexes in the US,[5] and most are not notable. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:27, 19 September 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) 13:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Balmer

Mark Balmer (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)

Possibly non-notable (fails

• Delete, not notable. The four books are all self-published or published by the subject's church. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable on an international spectrum, especially when he's self-published--Futeb00l (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One of the sources is a dead link and the other is just a directory. On the other hand, it looks like several different sites offer the guy's sermons -- which could be a suggestion of notability. (It's a little hard to judge, because the sites offering this stuff are often...I'm not sure if this is the right word, but a bit incestuous -- and sometimes something can appear in ten places, but it's really just one dude with ten websites.) What I really would like to find is some independent reliable source suggesting notability, and I can't seem to find it. TheOtherBob 03:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a
  run of the mill local radio evangelist. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 23 September 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) 13:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identically Different

Identically Different (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)

Band appears to fail

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not evidenced or even claimed, really ("reached mild popularity"??). PKT(alk) 13:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like "chart position = ?" even better... Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No substantive or
  WP:NMUSIC and is thus flagged for ref cleanup rather than outright deletion. Probably the best solution, thus, would be to redirect this to him (at least until he gets deleted as unsourceable too...) Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 21 September 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) 13:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of specialist photographic suppliers

List of specialist photographic suppliers (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 Even the opening paragraph (well, sentence actually) makes it clear that the purpose of the article is as a directory so it obviously violates that policy. Keresaspa (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AO, I'm not taking it personally. I just figure it's useful. - Denimadept (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:USEFUL -- the answer to the question, "Why is this useful?" is that it will tell someone where they can find current purveyors of a service they need. It's a shopping guide. You could somehow rethink this so that it includes photographic businesses that are notable for providing unusual services, and don't limit the scope to exclude defunct companies, it might become encyclopedic. But I'm not exactly sure what that solution would look like. Could be moved to user space for more work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Already copied to a sandbox space. - Denimadept (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 September 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 and redirect to Rangsit University. Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Economics, Rangsit University

Faculty of Economics, Rangsit University (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 unecessary Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 19:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not only not notable but the content itself reads like an enrollment advertisement. Orasis (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  csdnew 12:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. This article also does not pass
  WP:GNG. - tucoxn\^talk 23:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG and WP:ADVERT. There is already an article about Rangsit University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I don't see how this would be a useful redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 23 September 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) 13:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Sichtman

Darryl Sichtman (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

Boxer and kickboxer who fails to meet either

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. A known kickboxer with Glory potential. Just a kickboxer, not also a boxer. He already fought in the It's Showtime, Local Kombat (renamed SuperKombat after 2010), even Enfusion, and is the Tatneft Cup champion, you can check that Fightlife.ru link. A very solid promotion. Before he won the W5 event in Slovakia. He's probably in top 15-20 now. Strong record. I recommend notability tag instead as Papaursa. Thesavateur (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user interested in kickboxing articles, you might want to check the notability criteria for kickboxers at

WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I think notability guidelines for kickboxers are pretty clear. Potential has nothing to do with notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Potential is not grounds for keeping an article. He fails to meet the notability criteria at
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails both GNG and
  WP:KICK. Everyone has potential, but not everyone can have a Wikipedia article. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 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 Redirect to Longest word in English. In case somebody wants to copy this and transwikify (if a willing victim can be found), I did not delete the article but only made it into a redirect to Longest word in English as suggested. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full chemical name for titin

Full chemical name for titin (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)

Probably about the most useless page on Wikipedia right now. Trivia in the form of a 190K page that no one will ever actually read. Oh, there is a typo in the name at about the 10,000th character.

• Keep Useless? Well, for one thing, you could try testing the visual editor with it, eh? Browsing for sources, there seem to be lots of people out there having trouble putting this famous word into their documents. If we can handle it, then we perform a valuable service in making it available. The topic is obviously an adjunct or appendix to the main article about
  WP:SIZE it seems sensible to split onto this separate page. Andrew (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Migrate to Wikisource. The information, while interesting, possibly fundamentally violates
  WP:Technical as its usage is inherently technical and the intricacies of the structure as indicated by the word itself are both difficult (impossible?) for the "average" reader to understand and impossible to summarize in any other way as this is just one word that has no synonyms. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 19:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment; what is the reliable source for this name? I couldn't verify it from pre-Wikipedia (ca. 2006) sources.
  Fram (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Transwiki to WikiSource. Wikipedia simply
  is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, using an article for the full name of something is inappropriate to Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature.-- danntm ^T _C 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Keep or Migrate 90% of wikipedia could be classified as "Trivia" and useless. If anything this opens up curious minds to the world of Chemical naming lexicography and should be on this page as to WHY the name is so long. Or migrate this to the article on chemical lexicography as the longest, but, again, because of
  WP:SIZE this article should stand alone as a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.8 (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Migrate to Wikisource. This article does not belong on Wikipedia because the whole page is devoted to just the word. The rest of the technical information is on the main article. The only reason to go to the page is for the novelty of the long word. Other long-worded articles have content other than just the long word. Thus, it is not an encyclopedic article by itself. Ideally, it should be merged, but since that is obviously out of the question, we should move it to Wikisource so we can still reference it. Once moved, it should be linked to in the main article. cyberdog958^Talk 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wikisource. Articles need to contain more than a single word (even if that single word is longer than most articles). As has been previously stated, other articles about really long words are legitimate article that do more than just spell out the long word. According to comments on Talk:Titin, clear consensus has already emerged against putting the whole name of titin in the article. As such, I believe the best solution is to transwiki. As the longest word in any language, the full name of titin is definitely of literary significance and appropriate for inclusion in wikisource. We could even provide a link to the wikisource page on the Linguistic significance section of the titin article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to
  talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Longest word in English, not independently notable. GiantSnowman 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reading the article on titin, it seems that since the protein varies from "~27,000 to ~33,000 amino acids", there isn't just one name to give the protein anyway. The content of the article therefore can't even represent what the article purports to be. It's just a meaningless plaything. Deli nk (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good keep rationale. I don't think this fits well in any project, but people are welcome to try to transwiki it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I see nothing encyclopedic about this. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think there is any point of keeping this article in wikipedia. This is a IUPAC name. If we want to write IUPAC name of any of the large organic compound then the name will be long. Therefore, I am not sure that you can consider it as the largest word in any language. May be in Titin page it can be mentioned that the IUPAC name of Titin is the largest word in english. But I don't find any point of copying the entire name. This article is completely useless. Unatnas1986 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though the word is mentioned in the article titin, readers cannot really know anything about the word through the article. -- Truthteller2001 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Truthteller2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete or Transwikify. Unencyclopedic and not notable. —
  t c 10:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Transwikify. I'm not one to cite
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but even I have to suggest this is too trivial. Darmokand (talk) 10:03, 25 September 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 Redirect to Akira Toriyama. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ho

Mr. 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)

Non-notable work of manga. Has been tagged for notability for 3 years. I would be ok with a redirect to Akira Toriyama. Natg 19 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Akira Toriyama. Just curious but why didn't you just redirect the article yourself? if the redirect was reverted then you could have considered deletion options. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Akira Toriyama as suggested. KK87, there were some other things that might have discouraged boldness in this instance. Thoroughly endorse the decision to bring this here and the suggested redirect. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested above. I can't find anything that can help pass this article our notability threshold. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Akira Toriyama.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 24 September 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) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial/Modern Gender System

Colonial/Modern Gender System (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 initially PRODed this as "coined by a non-notable person in a single article." I revise my strong position on the non-notability of Lugones to "possibly non-notable", as one would have to sort through the sources to see which ones discuss her and which ones just cite her or are by her, but this theory still appears only in her work (the other journal articles don't even cite her, much less discuss her theory). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regardless of the author, this is a
  neologism discussed by one person. A discussion of cultural constructions of gender should be at gender. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -It's a full article based on a neologism.Orasis (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Roscelese and Troutman and Orasis, okay, everybody up there, plus an additional problem is that it is essentially
  secondary sources commenting on the theory, explaining it, arguing with or against it, but I did not find sufficient evidence of this happening. I did not find the term used in my numerous newspaper sweeps; I did find a source here which discusses her theory at length by another scholar named Alison Bailey. My searches without filters did not find much which was not written by Lugones. QED delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: I've tried another search and found more hits on the titular phrase, but this nonetheless seems to be a situation where we'd discuss her work in her own article and/or under something like colonialism or gender if appropriate. The middle ground of having an article on a theory created by one person does not seem to be borne out by its treatment in the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 19 September 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 and redirect to List of bus routes in London#100–199. Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 116

London Buses route 116 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

No evidence of meeting

• Keep Most London bus routes of this age are notable as there is an extensive literature about them which I'll check when I'm next passing the
  WP:BEFORE. Andrew (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Actually, my comment shows exactly the opposite; the mention of a possible merge shows that I have looked at alternative to deletion, that's why I mentioned it.
  List of night buses in London would be other possibilities. Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The point of exploring the alternatives to avoid creating yet another discussion page. You're supposed to try that
  WP:PRESERVE, deletion is a last resort, not the first thing to try. Andrew (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Individual London bus routes are deemed notable, Anyway passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no policy that London bus routes are inherently notable and no indication of secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per below - From past discussions & what not it's at times been a case of "It's in London so it's notable" and I tend to think the same although I evidently shouldn't!, Anyway nothing worth keeping & nothing notable about it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there seems to be sufficient reliable information about this route. In the alternate, this warrants merger into a list of London bus routes, not outright deletion.-- danntm ^T _C 19:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems informative & notable--Futeb00l (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ILIKEITCharles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bomination withdrawn per all above - thanks for your input. Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After one day? When most editors have not had time to see it? Let an uninvolved admin decide in due time.Charles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—the article as it exists at the moment fails GNG. There is only one reference in the article, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. GNG says we need significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is not satisfied by a single footnote. Imzadi 1979 → 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Just a run of the mill route with no special claim to fame. Many London routes have been so redirected. No indication of significant secondary coverage outside the bus fan world.Charles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regretfully. (Also, redirect to List of bus routes in London#100–199.) There are no sources indicating that this route is anything special. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 19:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, unless some reliable secondary sources are found that demonstrate GNG. At the moment, there's a single primary source from 2007; if this were a notable route, there should be plenty of
  reliable secondary sources available. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and redirect to
  WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 25 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free the Nipple

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

• Delete unless independent references are provided sharpish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 17:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

AKA:(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)

• Keep per being an unreleased film whose production exceeds coverage to meet
  WP:NRVE, lacking use of sources does not equate to non-notability and simply requires editorial attention. It should also be spoken of in the article on director Lina Esco. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How is the production of the film notable? I would also note that one of the references offered is a piece written by the director herself, who has an interest in promoting her film. As pointed out by Graeme below, the campaign seems more notable than this film, perhaps the article should be refocused. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production itself may be considered notable through

WP:PRIMARY the director is allowed to offer information about her film, it is simply that her words do not impart notability. We have no expectation that the film will be subject of in-depth analysis or commentary until after it is released. And a refocus to be about the campaign would be a reason for editing or creation of a new article about the campaign, but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep after looking I found 4 newspaper articles on the topic, but I will say that the campaign is more notable than the film, which is only part of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nice amount of discussion among sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the above comments, I withdraw this nomination. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Whoever wrote this article should have written it about the campaign first and then considered an article on the film. Having a standalone article for the film seems
  WP:UNDUE.--Launchballer 08:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, no more "UNDUE" than any documentary film article which speaks about its film's production and inspiration and filmmaker. You're welcome to write one about the campaign, but as the film is sourcable and has coverage to meet
  WP:NFF (paragraph 3), we can let this stay and grow over time and through regular editing. As for the campaign, with both being creative children of Lina Esco, it and this film are deeply intertwined. The film will either outlast the campaign or encourage it, and the campaign can be included in the article about the film. More importantly, even were the campaign to be a blip and go away next week, the film will remain. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep And thanks to
  talk) 09:34, 22 September 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 and redirect to Fred Olen Ray. Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girl with the Sex-Ray Eyes

Girl with the Sex-Ray Eyes (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)

As unreferenced and non-notable Cheers, Thanks,

• Delete Very little mention in reliable secondary sources and none of it in-depth. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then Redirect title to director
  WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply I would support a redirect as well. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 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. Although currently unsourced, being a valid species means that there exist reliable sources. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthrobacter luteus

Arthrobacter luteus (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)

As non-notable. Cheers, Thanks,

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is an unsourced stub, but the academic literature shows it is very notable. I remind the nominator of
  WP:BEFORE.--cyclopia^speak! 09:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Subject is notable. See
  WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 23 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moraine Music Group

Moraine Music Group (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 not a neutral description but an advertisement. Also doubtful notability, as MMG doesn't have to much Google Hits. Their artists, songs and songwriters have no influence on the notability of the company. The Banner talk 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the songs and songwriters do have an influence on the notability of the company when the company in question is a music publishing company. Orasis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Article needs work and more sources but I think that the general notability is there. Orasis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This could use attention from a country music expert, but I'm convinced they're notable. I've added a few mentions in other sources but (based on other mentions I didn't include) they are spoken about as a major force on the Nashville music scene. For plausibility, see the better-quality referencing of principal Brent Maher. Promotional language and COI problems should be fixed by normal editing.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:59, 20 September 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) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

حمیدرضا ابراهیم زاده

حمیدرضا ابراهیم زاده (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an article on the same person (Hamidreza Ebrahimzadeh) was added to fa wiki by an
  WP:SPA recently. It claims that he has published numerous articles (the word used could include blog entries and such) and a book. He blogs in Farsi (his blog is at [6]). Nothing that seems notable. Perhaps someone who is a native Farsi speaker can glean more. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per nom and Carlossuarez46.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 25 September 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) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rehal Dynasty

Rehal Dynasty (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't source this. It's kings were evidently

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. The book "Lost Kings by Ahnya Venkatesh" doesn't exist. I had a cursory look at the creator's other contributions - the user definitely needs to be warned for creating hoaxes. utcursch | talk 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Source cannot be verified and doesn't seem to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rondrick Williamson

Rondrick Williamson (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just ran a more thorough check through Google than I did before, this time eliminating results that matched a key phrase from the bio on his own website, and found nothing useful for
  WP:BIO purposes. I thought a couple of the sources given in the article looked acceptable, but the one in the Southwest Oklahoma news site, I just saw, only mentions him in connection with a local event. At most this one could be OK, but it certainly isn't enough. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Lacks
  significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Plus, article seems a bit too promotional for an encyclopedia.-- danntm ^T _C 17:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:42, 25 September 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. The article was found to be an unambiguous copyright violation. (Non-administrative closure.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Francés

Fernando Francés (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)

Effectively a resurrection of an article that was speedily deleted in January. The main reason to delete this article is that it is in Spanish, not English. I am not nominating this for speedy deletion because an article on this subject does not exist on the Spanish Wikipedia. I invite thoughts on whether the Spanish Wikipedia would like to have this article! Yaris678 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, if being in Spanish is the only grounds being offered for deletion. Articles written in languages other than English are handled according to the procedures at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Basically, if no one translates them within two weeks after being posted to that page, they are PRODded. I've never seen anyone contest a PROD posted after an article went the two weeks without being translated. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just took care of posting the article to
  WP:PNT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion since it is still substantially a copyvio of the same text the previous version was a copyvio of: here. However, I have also blocked the creator of both versions for a user name violation: their username means "CAC Press". This means they cannot post to the article talk page contesting the speedy. If anyone else wants to, please do, but you should then radically rewrite it to eliminate the copyvio. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 September 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.

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 has but 2 sentences (lead) on the event and another lone reaction with a final section on speculation . This is NOTNEWS Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is AFD not
  WP:PR, only your last point is vaguely relevant to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 12:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Terrible article, but quite clearly a notable disaster. Would there even be a tiny chance of deletion if a disaster with this sort of death toll had happened in the USA or UK? Not a hope in hell. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable event, covered worldwide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep oops, forgot this. Clearly notable, and more than just a church collapse when taking the context of the characters too. Clearly yet another pointed nomination from someone who seems to not entirely understand what AFD is for, e.g. ever heard of a stub? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Noteworthy incident with Plenty of news coverage including the SABC, BBC, CNN, Reuters, The Guardian, and others.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable based on the number of fatalities. Wikipedia has a problem with systemic (first world) bias and the nominator should know better. Zaian (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Covered the world over. Orasis (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the death of 60 people is not notable enough for the nominator then I wonder what exactly should be notable for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.12.43 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As per others above me.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:21, 20 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of trading companies

List of trading companies (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 list contains an arbitrary list of companies without any clear definition for inclusion to the list. Even if there was a clear definition it would be better to use a category rather than this page. Sargdub (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 11:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Qualifies for an article per
  WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per NorthAmerica. Numerous notable entries; valid list-article. If it helps the nominator, consider that "List of notable trading companie" is the implicit title; we just leave out the "notable" as it is understood. Thanks. --doncram 22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on the last two points, these are good points and I don't have an issue with a list as well as category for certains lists. My main concern is what qualifies as a trading company. Given the definition in the article I would say most companies are trading companies. All retailers, shops, distributors and importers exporters etc, the list goes on, I would say the bulk of all companies in existence would qualify. In particular I note that financial trading companies such as ABN Assets and Plus500 have been added to the list, if these also qualify then we can add most financial companies as well. I note that WP:WikiProject Companies has about 20,000 company pages on Wikipedia, so are we suggesting adding a large percentage of these to this article? Doncram your suggestion of limiting it to notable companies could help and the article could be renamed, but again definition is difficult, to have an article on wikipedia it must be notable so we might still be talking 5,000 -10,000 companies. I note that before this article became a magnet for spam entries, which is why I noticed it and proposed its deletion, most of the companies on the list were historic and an alternative could be to create a page of companies established before a certain date say 1800 so that we only have historic companies, but not sure this achieves the purpose of the creator of this list. Sargdub (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have updated the lead of the article to provide a more informative overview. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, notability of items within a list does not have to rise to the level of Wikipedia-notability for an independent article on each item. Red-links are useful, and is one way that lists are better/different than categories. Black-links where no article is expected can be okay. See
  wp:LISTN. I think it is pretty obvious that each item that has an independent article can be mentioned in a list, but also more can be mentioned (with sources). Standards for list item inclusion are to be discussed at the list-article talk page. --doncram 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Agree that notable is understood given that only companies notable enough to have an article are listed. It is assumed that each company fits within the definition given in Trading company. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see my followup just above, and

wp:LISTN. An AFD cannot decide forever that the list-item inclusion standards must be so high. Items can be red-links or black-links without articles. I personally don't care about inclusion standards for this one list, and restricting inclusion to simply items known to be wikipedia-notable on their own is okay by me. But continuing standards are for discussion at the list-article's talk page. --doncram 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:NOTDUP.-- danntm ^T _C 05:43, 19 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Amuthan

RJ Amuthan (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)

Absolutely no sources to prove notability, and appears to have been badly copied from RJ Balaji. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the
  up and coming person - once he has gained real notability there can be a Wikipedia article about him, but not before. --bonadea contributions talk 09:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any independent reliable coverage either. You don't get a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. ~
  talk) 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the above. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 20 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bookitlive (Service)

Bookitlive (Service) (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 seem to have any coverage beyond adverts and social media. Fails

• Delete as no evidence of notability - Only stuff I've found is therapy related ... Fails GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit Please suggest Edit required for article to be retained. I am new here and trying to understand why this article should be deleted when other wiki articles on other startup based business are the same. For example Dropbox, Aconex and Booking.com can it be refereed to admin who specializes in startups and online booking software. A Google search on bookitlive confirms coverage.Finella.oakley (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Finella, I think you're confused. The other companies that you have mentioned have significant coverage and plenty of secondary sources to pick from, bookitlive does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, not a bulletin board and not an advertisement space. Any company can be 'googled' however what is important is notability and an easy way to compare bookitlive to any of the companies you mentioned above is to do a 'Google News' search. See my point? Orasis (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability requirements. It also borders on more of an advertisement than it does an article. Orasis (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Updated article to address the concerns raised by comments by adding reference examples. Has the same notability as other articles by similar startups and should not need paid PR media releases to justify its inclusion Finella.oakley (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply The sources you added do not appear to be reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to find any decent coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A startup company that develops original software for Australia's top 500 companies has notability, the references used demonstrate that these companies are organisations that are using the product. Can you provide example of what references are required?Finella.oakley (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go.

WP:RS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:53, 22 September 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.

Eugene Miheso Swinnerstone

Eugene Miheso Swinnerstone (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete May just pass A7, but not notable enough for an article. No reliable independent sources provided, and in a search I didn't see anything worthwhile in the two pages of ghits that came up. Peridon (talk) 13:14, 22 September 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) 07:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Adele Ray

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

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

no evidence of having done any notable work so far DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not even fairly notable. Orasis (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Didn't find sources, after searching, unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk)`
• Delete per above - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • [[User talk:Davey2010|(talk)]20:56, 22 September 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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Ramesh

P. V. Ramesh (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 is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio  Ohc ^¡digame! 04:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very senior civil servant at a level which should give him automatic notability (and certainly would do if he was at this level in the USA or UK). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -The sources are solid and varied. He may not be notable to us but he does seem to be a notable person in India and within the UN. Orasis (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A subject with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is generally considered to be
  Hangout 18:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per Orasis. Poor article, but not so promotional as nominator implies. And there are good sources that establish his notability. —innotata 04:46, 23 September 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DataXu

DataXu (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 of unclear notability. The article is nothing but

]

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

• Keep - Respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. As stated in
  FindTheBest, and One Kings Lane. In addition to those fields, this article also includes references to acquisitions, notable public recognition, and the launch of a public consortium. Would recommend consolidation of Customers and Competitors sections into overview, but not article deletion. Dhfort (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Satisfies
  WP:ADMASQ; the article language is not sales-oriented nor it has an advertising tone. AVR (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)— AVazquezR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don;t see this as a notable company. The references are mention or press releases. Fastest growing for a small company usually is the equivalent of not yet notable. The award is merely regional. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Prefacing this discussion: I am an employee of DataXu, which represents a potential COI, but it should also be noted that I am a Wikipedian of more than 8 years, far longer than an employee of DataXu. I also respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. Notoriety according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPANY includes a definition of "notable" that states that a given company/organization must have multiple first-party, non-regional, reputable sources, which the article more than satisfies with several independent reputable sources. It should also be noted that the '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"', and is not based on ones opinion of a company, but rather the direct reference not related to the product in reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernooder (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — Ubernooder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - Respectfully disagree with DGG. Inc magazine is a national publication and the ranking is highly coveted. See news coverage of this year's list here. DGG does not provide a definition of "small" so it's impossible to dispute, but according to the Inc 500 results, DataXu's revenue is greater than $100M. Finally, the article's author could easily have provided more than 100 articles written about DataXu from publications as diverse as AdAge, MarketingWeek, GigaOm and Boston Magazine. http://www.dataxu.com/media-coverage/. Skeats111 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)— Skeats111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Adding a note: DataXu includes a Demand-side_platform a category of company considered notable enough to have its own entry since 2012. This entry references an article written by DataXu's long-time CEO, Mike Baker, as evidence of the significance of this category of software company. Skeats111 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - DataXu is notable enough within its field. There are references to DataXu on techunch, business insider and multiple (here and here) on forbes. It's at least on the same level as
  Rocker Fuel and MediaMath. That said, the article has a pitchy tone and should be toned down. Ferrante (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)— Mferrante3 (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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted since most of the above are SPA's. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. DataXu might be evil, but it's certainly notable in technology circles, and of interest to consumer privacy advocates. The article does need to be improved to be more balanced. -- Beland (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources cited are more than enough to establish notability. However this seems to be a clear case of
  WP:CONFLICT so I'm going to add the appropriate template to the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 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.