Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 18 April 20 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close - No references isn't a valid reason by its self for deletion,

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Pheneticillin

Pheneticillin (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 references A8v (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motu Hafoka

Motu Hafoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to qualify as notable according to

WP:ROUTINE coverage. Multiple, independent, reliable, secondary, non-trivial sources are lacking. Attempts to locate them only point back to this article. KDS4444Talk 23:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(You aren't listening to me— please see above.
WP:NFOOTBALL is a guideline for quick assessment, but it does not trump Wikipedia's notability requirements which this article does not appear to meet.)KDS4444Talk 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC))[reply
]
English is one of the national languages of Samoa, but the Samoa News and the Samoa Observer, two Samoan newspapers, do not seem to mention him anywhere in their archives. Neither does the Samoa Times. His New Zealand death notice (which says nothing more than that he died, apparently of suicide) might be the 1E of a
WP:BIAS, it is just "not notable." KDS4444Talk 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps your not searching the right sources. Neither seem to have as much older news than newer news. It seems inconceivable that local media wouldn't have reported when international media did. Looking in other Samoan sources [2] and Oceanian sources [3] does find further information. Nfitz (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Several editors mounted a spirited defense. However, their arguments all come down to "there's nothing wrong with this, why delete it?", which is equivalent to

WP:ILIKEIT. On the other hand, the editors arguing for deletion have polic-based arguments, the most important one being the absence of reliable sources independent of the subject. No prejudice to creation of a redirect to another article if a suitable target becomes available, which currently doesn't seem to be the case. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

File 18

File 18 (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 newsletter seems to have had only twenty issues - lasting less than a year - and a self-claimed circulation of just 2,000. However, there doesn't seem to be any claim of notability, or indeed any reason why it could be notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember: More information is better than less. One must review Wikipedia articles from the viewpoint of researchers searching for information, not from the viewpoint of editors looking to "clean up" articles.
There are zero legitimate reasons to delete this history and numerous reasons why this -- and related articles covering obscure extremist newsletters -- are wholly encyclopedic. Also there have been anonymous individuals who have attempted to delete this article before when some of the people involved in the newsletters later sought public office, and evidences the Theocratic ideologies of said individuals, to the point where the article was on the verge of being placed for protection. Damotclese (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is just absurd. FILE 18 was an excellent example of the "Satanic Panic" that swept through the low-IQ population of America in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and there is no legitimate reason to remove the Wikipedia entry for the newsletter; there are excellent reasons to keep it. The chief reason to keep the entry in Wikipedia is obvious: people studying and researching the "Satanic Panic" era need to have as many examples of the symptoms as possible to get a overview of the issue, and FILE 18 is one of the best examples of that hysteria. --Desertphile (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also these discussions should have taken place in the File 18 Talk: page, the editor requesting deletion should not have done so without first discussing it in the relevant article's Talk: page. Wikipedia sets guidlines however they are not "carved in stone," however discussing major edits and changes usually starts in an article's Talk: page. Damotclese (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I have added file 18 to my watchlist, I'll restore it if anybody tried to delete it. Yeah, this should have been brought up on the talk page, that's what it's there for. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on the actual talk page, the editor that flagged the article for deletion is not allowed to delete it. After a week or so the flag will be removed and that should end this cycle of attempting to remove it. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware that if the article is deleted, then restoring it can be seen as disruptive behavior. AfD restorations should go through the deleting administrator (whomever that will be) and if they refuse, then it should go through
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry, didn't realize I got logged out. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any legitimate reason for the deletion request other than personal opinions, though, while at the same time there is a great deal of history behind the creation of the newsletters and the background of the individuals who created the newsletters. The newsletters are wholly informational and part of researcher background in to so-called
Satanic Panic
episodes.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to delete such information without good cause, reducing researcher findings. It was, in part, the creation of these religious newsletters utilizing tax dollars which prompted the State of California creating the Occult Crime guide for law enforcement officers ( http://www.holysmoke.org/report/index.htm and other locations on the 'web ) which is intimately tied to File 18 history. That's not opinion, that's just the history of the File 18 newsletter which is entirely relevant to the cycles of "Satanic Panics" in the United States. I'm not sure why any serious editor would even consider the article for deletion. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typically we nominate articles for deletion here when the subject doesn't seem to meet the criteria in our notability guidelines. And that's exactly what the nominator here has done. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I mentioned in the Talk: page of the extant article, the newsleter is notable, it is linked to numerously out in the real world and there is no good reason to delete the page.
The fact that the article is informative, useful, and is linked to in the real world dictates that the page continue lacking any serious reason to remove it. This isn't an encyclopedia which has limited room, this is an open-ended encyclopedia which seeks to provide researchers and the curious information about all subjects.
Rule of thumb: More information is better than less. We seek to be encyclopedic while being useful, that's what :encyclopedias are. We don't limit information just because someone doesn't like it for whatever reason. Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BiologistBabe BB, I don't understand what the issue here is. So far it looks like someone wants to delete the page "just because." You asked me to comment on this delete request but I don't see any reason offered why it is being requested to be deleted. Was there a reason other than "it's not notable" given by the person who wanted it gone? TrainsOnTime (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen, she's still in the field, you have to call her at Mammy Yoko Hotel Freetown and leave a message. Come by my office when you have a chance. Damotclese (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Checking the comments for and agains removal, and checking Google to find 3,240 pages covering File 18, and finding this entry as #1 in the search list and finding other web pages linking to it, and seeing no serious reason offered to remove it, the page should be kept.
But I don't agree that the page needs to be updated to include more information, I find the newsletters themselves contain enough information for anyone researching File 18 using this article as a jump-off point to be just fine.
canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guide to the Territories of Halla

The Guide to the Territories of Halla (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 is a reference book to a part of a series of science fiction books. Not notable outside the series, really. I'm turning up no meaningful third-party coverage specific to this title. Mikeblas (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet
WP:NBOOK, google search brings up bookseller and fan sites only, appears to be niche book for fans of the series only. Have distilled the information to the author article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Stillwell

Roger Stillwell (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)

Case of

WP:ONEEVENT. Coverage is solely related to the Abramoff scandal. Stillwell was a non-notable bureaucrat with the Dept of the Interior with no real coverage until the Abramoff case. All of his coverage is all in the context of how he was involved with Team Abramoff. I don't see anything else that indicates he gets past notability that isn't focused on the scandal. An editor on the talk page claims Stillwell died, but I can't find evidence of that, so I'm treating this as a BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g7, author request (see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rochak Inter-College Fest

Rochak Inter-College Fest (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)

Nonnotable local inter-school competition. None of the cited sources are independent (they're the organization's Facebook page, etc). No indication of how this event satisfies our notability criteria,

WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete per nomination. -- Anonymousbananas (talk) The sources include various newsletters of the participating schools. the official school newsletters. There 2 social media references. No personal agenda here, but the event is significant since its centered around our National Language. I agree the article may look incomplete and nonnotable, but that primarily because i may not have all the required details; which is the essence of Wikipedia, to let articles grow based on community contributions. Its possible that the weight of a national-language based event may seem negligible to you, but you need to consider that English, the language of the USA, is now more predominant in India and this event helps keep the spirit of Hindi alive. I believe, a gun is being jumped here. Lets just let the community decide. — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, since the article has shown no indication yet of notability. On searching, it does not seem to be covered in external reliable sources either. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There was additional canvassing by one editor trying to save the article on the following mailing lists - wikimedia-in-amd, wikimedia-in-wb, wikimedia-in-newsletter, wikimedia-in-mlr, wikimedia-in-hyd, wikimedia-in-del, wikimedia-in-chn, wikimedia-in-blr. Not sure if linking to mailing lists is permissible here, so I'd refrain from also adding the additional link to the mail in question. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Volz

Neil Volz (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)

Case of

WP:AUTHOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of only children

List of only children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:DOAL: "Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable." I submit that this list is a perfect example of something that should only be a category, instead of being a list. In the U.S., for example, more than a fifth of children born these days will be only children.[7]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 22:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Twenty percent of humanity? massive list of no encyclopedic value. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is an encyclopedia page about
List of Christians
would also have no encyclopedic value, too, would you agree?
Furthermore, that the original objection linked to an article about the effects of raising only children implies that it's got some encyclopedic value. WACGuy (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main argument isn't that the idea of being an only child isn't notable, but that mostly this would be so incredibly large that it would be unwieldy. Right now this list only includes people well known in the United States and even then it's an extremely short list. This has the potential to have hundreds upon thousands of names on it, which will be an extremely bulky and unwieldy list. That's not even including the number of names that could yet be added to it- ie, the people who are notable but do not yet have pages or have yet to achieve notability. I agree that this would work better as a category rather than a list, since that's more easily navigated.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I wasn't going to start a category for it, though a category would be less inappropriate than a list. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe on the maintenance side of it, but regarding the significance of the biographical fact we're far more strict with categories than with lists. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
...sure enough, the category has failed CFD in the past... postdlf (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too large to maintain and more importantly too trivial to warrant being in an encyclopedia. This is the kind of excess baggage that one must simply toss overboard in order to save the ship. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too large and trivial. I also cannot recommend it as a category per
    WP:CATDEF. As SNUGGUMS states it is a non-defining trait. Yes, I know that some will argue that there are traits that a single child has that those with siblings do not but that is subjective and there are numerous examples of people who do not fit that pattern. MarnetteD|Talk 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @
    Tokyogirl79: I'm thinking probably not. It seems that if users aren't in support of keeping the content (which is fine, no objections) then it's best not to start something. I'd hate to invest energy into something that will probably get deleted. Take care. WACGuy (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Additional comments from WACGuy and discussion with Postdlf collapsed.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
But I do want to note that the armchair sociology that Wikipedia users wield is alarming. Statements like being an only child is a non-defining trait, when there are stereotypes about only children that they have to overcome. Middle children have stereotypes, oldest children have stereotypes, orphans have stereotypes that they all have to put up with in life. A stereotype already means that a person is growing up differently than someone else. It's contradictory to say that birth orders are a non-defining trait when there are Wikipedia articles dedicated to if and how it affects a child's upbringing. Or that users think twenty percent occurrence means something is common rather than uncommon.
The non-expert opinions that Wikipedia users swing to dismiss a person's upbringing is very alarming for a page that advocates NPOV. MarnetteD notes that there are examples of people that don't fit a pattern. But you just used the word "pattern", so if it's a non-defining trait, why does a "pattern" even exist? Exceptions don't prove anything, because if that were the case we could easily dismiss the claims of many people about socio-economic disadvantages in their education and careers because we can point out people from their background who became rich or successful or whatever, therefore the cries of "quit whining and don't make excuses", which is fine when it comes from someone who had the same upbringing, but really insulting when it comes from a person who has no first-hand experience of what that person is going through.
So, I agree with the point about "Some topics (e.g. a list of all people from a particular country who have Wikipedia articles) are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable". From a NPOV, this supports deletion of the list because it indeed will get way too big. But there's nothing in that item that asks "justify the credibility of the list with your POV". Unpleasant.WACGuy (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment seems to imply you think a non-expert editor's judgment to include something should be given more weight than a non-expert editor's judgment to not include it, which is curious. At any rate, those "stereotypes" all go to why "only child" has an article (note we otherwise have one on the concept of birth order generally). It does not follow that we must list together everyone with an article who was an only child or that we must assume it was verifiably important in the context of each (or most) such individual's life. On "POV", there's no way to construct an encyclopedia without making judgments as to the relative significance of information. We always have to decide what articles are worth including, what is worth including in an article, and what facts article topics have in common are worth indexing. Glancing at every article in the list that presently have a citation, not even half even mention their status as an only child, and none say anything substantive about it despite that sample of articles having rather well-developed sections on the subjects' families and early lives. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Postdlf, my comment wasn't about why the list should be included. My comment was a reaction to people's remarks that only child status is trivial and not defining. That's insensitive and judgmental. I really don't care about the list. WACGuy (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was commenting on that reaction, which makes less and less sense to me the more you've elaborated it. I don't even know who you think is being judgmental against whom. And if we're caring about being "sensitive", I don't see how asserting that people are not defined by being an only child could necessarily be more insensitive than asserting that people are defined by being an only child; every stereotype described at only child is negative. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Haihua

Zhang Haihua (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 am seeing no signs of actual notability (and only weak assertions of notability in the article itself) - although, admittedly, I am no expert in this area. (A Google search yielded many other Zhang Haihuas who do not appear to be the same person.) Unless notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIBLETIME

BIBLETIME (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)

WP:OR as reference is written by article author. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Thorne

Tamara Thorne (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)

Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia established in the article as it stands, nowhere near fulfilling

WP:AUTHOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alistair Cross. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Elegantly done. Lovely way to conclude an AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Baseball Challenge League. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niigata Albirex Baseball Club

Niigata Albirex Baseball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable semi-professional (not fully) baseball club. Wizardman 20:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Baseball Challenge League. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fukui Miracle Elephants

Fukui Miracle Elephants (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 semi-professional (not fully) baseball club. Wizardman 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Baseball Challenge League. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toyama Thunderbirds

Toyama Thunderbirds (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 semi-professional (not fully) baseball club. Wizardman 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megaverse Simulation Network

Megaverse Simulation Network (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)

Multiples Google News, Books and browser searches with "Megaverse Simulation Network" and with "Open Source" and "software" added provided nothing. I'm not an expert with software or this product but it seems there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Finding no secondary source coverage in the typical searches, but didn't look too hard considering that the "game" and "genre" aspect of the article's first draft appears to be a joke. The software is clearly described as a simulator and not a real-time strategy game. Please ping me if other sources, esp. non-English or offline, are found. czar 
    ⨹ 02:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was redirect to Sherrié Austin. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Water to the Soul

Water to the Soul (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)

Album barely notable. Colorhaus does not have its own article. One source is Answers.com which is not reliable and barely mentions the album anyway. The other is an Allmusic review which is the only reliable source about the album. Redirect to Sherrié Austin declined. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sherrié Austin. Turning this into an article on Colourhaus seemed a possible option but I don't think the band or this album received enough coverage to make it worthwhile. Colourhaus and this album seem to be adequately covered in the Sherrié Austin article so a redirect there makes sense. --Michig (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per
WP:NALBUMS, section Albums: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Although the article has some content, a redirect is in the spirit of the guideline. North America1000 17:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If somebody wants to have this userfied, they can ask me on my talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Cross

Alistair Cross (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 author. Almost no sign of independent, substantial coverage via Google, except for one write-up in a home-town paper. Almost no independent coverage for the author's first book or the Ravencrest series or the radio show. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 14:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Notable Citations/References
  • Cyrus Webb Presents Alistair Cross and Tamara Thorne May 29, 2014.
  • Hellnotes March, 2015.
  • Crystal Lake Publishing July 15, 2014.
  • Arts & Entertainment Magazine: The Eerie Digest November 14, 2013.
  • The Pyramid/The Daily Herald Newspapaer. March 26, 2015.
  • Authors on the Air. April 18, 2014.
  • The Horror Zine March 27, 2015.

— 2601:7:7380:176:a981:8771:8ecf:7a53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:08, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NativeForeigner Talk 21:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eason Chan concerts

Eason Chan concerts (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)

Unsourced and non-notable list of concerts that fails both

WP:CONCERT. Aspects (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JodyB talk 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Adams

Amanda Adams (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: non-notable

author; only one published work; rest is theses and promos. Quis separabit? 21:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 01:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep User:[email protected] seems to have missed the fact htat there are 2 published books, neither of them her thesis (which dealt with petroglyphs on Gabriola Island). Moreover Science (journal) published a profile on her and her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is redlinked to a number of Wikipedia articles, (because 2nd book was a series of biographies of notable archaeologists).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In sum. What I have found is that Ladies of the Field gets cited, not only on Wikipedia, but also in, you know, real books. That both Ladies and Mermaids were reviewed in
Publisher's Weekly, but, beyond that, only reviewed in minor outlets like archaeology blogs. That there is an occassional newspaper mention related to the books, and a few other mentions of her as a budding archaeologist, and that she is now a full-time mother. The only big deal article was the profile in Science, but Science is a pretty big deal. That, and the fact that the 2 books are real and are cited does, I think, push her into notability as an author. Albeit not by a wide margin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy A.S. Wingate

Guy A.S. Wingate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't

WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brittanya O'Campo

Brittanya O'Campo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a person who has been a contestant on a few reality TV show competitions, but lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish

notability. I reviewed and removed a bunch of unreliable sources. See this version to review those sources. Whpq (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Edwards (publicist)

Alan Edwards (publicist) (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)

Plain promo without real independent sources The Banner talk 17:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn. I accept that the film makes enough difference for notabllity DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Blaugrund Nevins

Andrea Blaugrund Nevins (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)

promotional article on very minor writer with very local publicity. In contrast, one or both of her parents might possibly be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Studies in Social Sciences

Centre for Studies in Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a research organization, making no substantive claim of

WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MTP-II MATER

MTP-II MATER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets

WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability since Marasmusine added the tag seven years ago; time for a resolution. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the link to cordis for this project, given in the first deletion request above does not work. this is the perfect example that links pointing to somewhere on the web, are not reliable. some years ago, i have started to open lemmata of EU-research projects to have reliable links. all were deleted, MATER is the last remain. this ends up in a discussion about the relevance of research projects. the related article in wikipedia says, that a project must be large to be relevant to wikipedia. hard to find the propper definition of "large" for a research project - where is the limit in euro or man power or topics between relevant and not relevant. i am an inclusionist and i am wondering, why there is a limitation for research projects producing new knowledge for mankind. the eu spends billions of euro for its international reasearch and interesting findings are beeing published every year. tiresome discussions. Hannes Grobe (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer As this has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, can I ask that it is repeatedly relisted rather than closed due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The EU Marine Science and Technology program under which this was funded may well be notable. I'm dubious that research grants, even large ones, are really a good subject for encyclopedia articles, but if they are then the Mediterranean Targeted Project may be large enough and written-about enough to be notable. I think it's quite unlikely that a single phase of a research grant (which is what the title refers to) is itself notable. And in any case we have only primary sources. If there were a larger parent article to redirect to I'd say merge but in the absence of one I think we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Brown (baseball)

Geoff Brown (baseball) (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 minor league baseball player who is currently a free agent. Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always serious. Alex (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropicana Golf and Country Club

Tropicana Golf and Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG and GNG. declined speedy but looks like an advert. All I could find was directory listings LibStar (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Neeraj Mehta

Neeraj Mehta (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)

Promo-piece. References themselves are promotional pieces that don't support claims on notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree this appears to be a promotional piece by an SPA. However, there appears to be enough sourcing to meet
    WP:GNG, albeit barely. I don't feel strongly about this article, so I reserve the right to change my mind (and vote) based on any arguments presented. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 14:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Incredibly Strange Film Show

The Incredibly Strange Film Show (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)

Contested PROD. Reason was " For this to remain we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in

WP:AFC
process, despite the banner announcing that it has done so. No notability is asserted nor verified."

Since the contesting of the PROD a pseudo-reference has appeared, but notability remains unasserted and unverified. Fiddle Faddle 13:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous mentions in books on cult cinema indicate its importance (more refs added to article). It also plays an important role in the career of Jonathan Ross, one of British TV's biggest personalities. There was also a spin-off book which may have attracted reviews (there's one of the Italian translation here but I don't know if L'Indice is a reliable source[14]). I wasn't able to check newspaper archives, but there is very likely to be additional press coverage from the pre-internet era. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Book [Ross, Jonathan (1993). The incredibly strange film book. London: Simon & Schuster.
    ISBN 978-0671712969
    .    ] is a later revision and spin-off to the show authored by Jonathan Ross himself.
  • Part of the problem is the use of
    talk) 14:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NativeForeigner Talk 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ERMES

AfDs for this article:
ERMES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets

Levdr1lostpassword. Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Lulashnyk

Troy Lulashnyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in

general notability and there is no inherent notability for any of his positions. Only material are short bios from the embassy, some notices of appointment and a couple passing mentions. Jbh (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it is not a simple copy of other sources, it is well written and relies on various sources (see external links. The article is compiled in a different form, added with sources and links. The subject is a important person e.g. an influential ambassador from Canada in a war troubled Ukraine. If necessary, don't remove but help to improve it. I have put already a lot of work to find all the informations about this person, to translate and compile them into a new article for Wiki. --Stonepillar (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have any rule that ambassadors or other diplomats are automatically entitled to articles on here just because they exist — a diplomat has to earn inclusion by being the subject of coverage in
primary sources like DFAIT's own website and his own alma mater's self-posted list of its own notable alumni. A properly sourced article would certainly be allowed to stay — but "properly sourced" does not describe this article in its current form. Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if and when real sourcing can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BIO isn't met. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2

Dance Dance Revolution Extreme 2 (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 subject; mostly

promotional (article) in nature. Quis separabit? 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of it was cleaned up. @
⨹ 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Ahh that makes a little more sense. ― Padenton|✉   16:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is general agreement that (as well as being promotional) that notability is not supported by references. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Election Services

Corporate Election Services (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)
Please have a look at the following @
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, for a deletion discussion where the case is clearer, the sources poorer, and the editor discussion is nevertheless richer, more substantial that what appears here so far: Binding_antibody. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Before any editor makes the foolish mistake of taking this seriously, I'd like to remind that Fortuna changes his/her mind every 4 days--180 degrees, | see here where by my reading Fortuna was in favor of the article in a more promotional state. This has been mostly resolved with 4 editors (including Fortuna) 5-6 days ago (now April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) & I have 2 requests on the articles talk that 4 days later still have yet to be replied to. This page now makes the 5th location where this mostly resolved 6 day old discussion will now take place, part of me is wondering if I'll see this non-issue 'issue' clutter 10 wikipedia pages or 25 & then grow stale for 4 days (now April 16, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting) with no response to my views ala the articles talk page. I'd respond directly to the "promotional" merits however you can already read about that being resolved on 4 talk pages. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 19:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That remark of mine tended towards the ironic. Hope that clarifies. (PS- "Before any editor makes the foolish mistake of taking this seriously"- REALLY?!Your defence of an article opens with an attack on an editor?!)
Imperatrix Mundi 13:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No attack, just stating the uncomfortable fact that you hide behind 'irony' when you're exposed, can all editors have 100% ironic discussions here as you spent your involvement 5 days ago (April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting)? We could stretch this out to 2018 with ironic responses & get nothing resolved at all, do 180s every 4 days on and on and on. That defence of mine tended towards starting out that this is the 5th page we are having this discussion on, but that seems to be an uncomfortable fact for you too since you've gone silent on it despite 18 hours to reply (April 19, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-19) & counting), and yet your reply above really didn't explain your unsubstantiated claim at all, just like on the articles talk page there are valid (non ironic) matters to be resolved that have yet to be replied to 5 days later (now April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting). The irony indeed, why don't you get serious about this 6 days in (now April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting), quit playing 'irony' games and maybe you'll receive a serious reply in around 6 days :-). Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, reject this analysis. The period in question may be poorly archived by digital search—I did not recheck your Bing effort—but the article currently includes a book reference, a half dozen newspaper articles, at least 4 solid online magazine articles, as well as a slew of SEC documents I have yet to look at. There seems to be no question that a company that has received this much attention, even if big-city-local, is notable enough for a good, short business article. Moreover, if the text in the article is accurate, its notability extends beyond metropolitan and regional, and touches on Fortune 100/500 companies. It's no Google, but also not Gemma's Fish and Chips, either. No, I see no merit to the notability accusation leveled against this article. [And as for general attitudes, note, an "outfit" is the organization that makes book and runs the docks for your waterfront metro, or else are things that the ladies (and maybe some gents) purchase in an apparel shop. This article, sadly, is just about a people-employing, tax-paying business. More boring than the eponymous alternatives, but still, perhaps due a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.] Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For persective, see this article for deletion, Binding antibody. But know I am fully behind you on the matters of good grammar and in-line references. Fully and unequivocally on such, just not here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:CHANGE ABOVE TO EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP, after 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 whole days (now April 14, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-14) & counting), no editor has been able to tell anyone why it is either promotional or non-notable. Lots of hot air here, no substance to any of this. If I were editors involved with this my primary concern would be mitigating a near-future Admin block for failing after 10 days to adhere to any wikipolicy concerning article deletion safeguards. BeenAroundAWhile, I could tell the world what that statement of yours was, but you already know it because of course you as a responsible/serious editor read the article & talk pages so you already see dozens of RSs for notability and you also are fully aware that the legit search you did actually pulls up dozens of sites for this topic. So going on the 11th day (now April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting), and knowing editors are reading the talk pages and still can't tell me why (aside from searches that validate this articles STRONG KEEP) how is this not a comedy productionruse? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK, isn't this AfD proof certain wikipedia editors can do anything they want for 13 days (now April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting)? Glad to see someone is interested in Wikipedia principals here, but I'd start with the 'drive-by' 'one-line', 'hide-for-a-week', editors. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. What I'm talking about is that every editor only gets to !vote on AfD once, and you !voted twice. BMK (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong motion to table. I would move to table this proposed deletion, until the following tasks are accomplished by those participating on each side of the discussion, after which discussion can be renewed:
1. Opponents of the article mark specific elements in the text with which they have POV issues, with the appropriate inline tags, so that we can see what you perceive the real issues to be.
2. Proponents of the article address the poor state of the URL-only sources, moving them to a consistent format that makes it easy for those reviewing to see the real substance, or lack thereof, of the sources on which the article is based.
Can I propose we do these two things, between now and 1200 EDT, 4 May (beginning of the day, that Monday), after which we reconvene to decide? Otherwise, I will cast a strong vote reflecting that this article is far more neutral, and apparently about a business of far greater notability, than many other unchallenged ones here (and will request experts to come on board to review of all aspects of this proposal and its aims). Cheers, Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: My father, rest his soul, purchased most of his wife's and children's holiday gifts from the hardware and tools section of Sears, I myself used the company Parker Hannifin mentioned in the article as a BTB vendor many years back, I have fought with and and been reconciled to a feisty editoress with Market in her name, have competed earnestly against Pfizer (and likely have consumed some product of theirs at some point, but not by the handful), have consumed manifold soft drinks made from cans produced by Alcoa, and at one point (Lor' forgive) dated a woman named Sallie Mae. Despite all these, I believe the forgoing to be an honest, unbiased attempt to do right by this issue and article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, nice to see you again Leprof (full disclosure Leprof and I have assisted each other a few times in the past). Second, I have wanted to clean up the references in the article as evidenced by the history and my submitting it to the tech message board here, but alas we are on day 12 of this hall-of-mirrors adventure. So I have no qualms with point 2.
Most importantly, with point 1, the problem with this entire endeavor is that a few editors who as best I can tell just like to play games over 12 days (now over April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) are more than willing to tag everything in site then disappear for a week when you confront them with why or most importantly how they can show good-faith by actually using 12 days (now over April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) to improve the article.
Nothing on this page after a week (and really 12 days ((now over April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting)) do I see as legitimate, reasonable or valid, and trust me I've waited for something, anything. This is not a 22 day (now over April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) problem (with reference to your good faith May 4 date), at most this is simply a few days on the articles talk page 'problem', which interestingly enough these 'label happy' editors have done their best to ignore standing concerns there for 12 days.
There is a place on wikipedia for 22 day manufactured 'issues' (now over April 15, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-15) & counting) from editors who hide behind 'irony' and then change their minds or ignore valid questions every 4 days, not here, but I'm starting to think if I'm asked about this after 22 days I'll be putting it on that forum.
I do thank you for your good faith effort to neutrally mediate this LeProf in a way that seeks to bring sides together, I'm not against good-faith improvements to the article as evidenced in several areas, I'm against hit-and-run non-issues wasting our time. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Market, but you do me greater justice than I deserve—I cringe at articles whose sources cannot be easily reviewed, and simply wanted to see the article move toward being unquestionably acceptable (made all the easier if I can really vet the references). However, the analysis of the sources that I could do was supportive (see the Bing mention above), and I have no questions as a scientist-turned-businessman that this article's subject is important enough. Have a go at those sources, and we'll see if anyone gets to work and substantiates any negative claim, meanwhile. Now, I have to add my own disclaimer to my earlier posting. Cheers, Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding third-party sources of substance. The references are loaded with non-substantive links. #'s 4-6, 13, 19-20, 23-24 are all directory entries. #14-17 is the company's own web site. #22, 28, 30 have only a mention #27 doesn't mention it at all. This is reference cramming, and not only doesn't help, it wastes people's time during AfD's. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "Keep" Mona, consider:
"I'm not finding third-party sources of substance." False
"The references are loaded with non-substantive links." False
"#'s 4-6, 13, 19-20, 23-24 are all directory entries." False
"#27 doesn't mention it at all." False
"This is reference cramming." False, April 14, 2015, read
"and not only doesn't help." False, APRIL 14, 2015, read what editors like you thought by launching 5 talk pages.
"it wastes people's time." True, block Fortuna if you're going to complain.
"during AfD's." False, see my 1st comment, r-e-a-d, this is a 13 day one-word insult lie.
I will happily accept your apology. Can I lie about editors for 13 days, make unsubstantiated allegations of them violating policies then run away for weeks and not reply to their talk page inquiries? No, so neither can any editor leaving a comment on this page, if you have good faith you will exercise it by reading the mess that a certain editor created with 5 talk page one-line insults & then hiding for a week (now over April 16, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting) without responding to reasonable good faith inquiries. If an editor wishes to comment here maybe r-e-a-d at least the comments on this page, and really r-e-a-d all other 4 pages that the 'one-word insult' 'hit-and-run artist' 'hide-for-a-week' (now over April 16, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting) editor was reading when they decided to as you put it "waste people's time". We do agree on that. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 03:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Truly fascinating, did you read anything here? Is an editor's vote considered when they parrot unsubstantiated allegations that have unanswered reasonable challenges going back a week, and on the articles talk page? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
duh, no, i only does whatz all da udders duz cause i aint got no brainses.
You kmow what, you can stick your comment where the sun doesn't shine, sweetheart. If you don't like the way I !voted, based on my own personal evaluation of the material, there's nothing much you can do about it, but insulting me rates right up there at the top of the list of shit you can do which will make it absolutely certain that there's no possible chance of changing my mind. Now, stop being a jerk and hassling editors who disagree with you.
(Oh, and yes, my !vote actually does count. It's enough to make you cry, innit?) BMK (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page, except you just edited my words there. I'd ask (for the 2nd time in 3 hours) if you read my two April 26, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-26) questions & if you intend to answer, but per usual with this unreasonable (violation of wikipedia policies?) AfD no answer to my April 26, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-26) reasonable questions to you. So 100% non-responses going back April 16, 2015; 10 years ago (2015-04-16) & counting. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 07:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Good rescue job by

Everymorning. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Have a Nice Life

Have a Nice Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable band. Lacking in reliable sources to establish notability. There are three sources given, #1 is a user music review site, #2 comes from the record label of the artist, so it isn't secondary, and #3 is just a recording of one of their albums. There's also nothing to suggest that they meet

the notability requirements for bands either. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 12:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, should have been speedied. May even be salted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noman Group of Industries

AfDs for this article:
Noman Group of Industries (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)

All bar one source are incidental mentions. Posit this version fails

WP:NCORP. Dolescum (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manolita Piña

Manolita Piña (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 supercentenarian. Fails GNG and V. Has been unsourced since creation and has been tagged with notability issues since 2012. Prod declined (after 7 days) by User:Ollie231213 because: "The oldest person ever from a country. More sources might be available. Take this to AfD". Nothing of value is in this article that isn't already present in List of Spanish supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 12:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Scottish independence referendum

2nd Scottish independence referendum (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)

csdnew 10:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Mieschke

AfDs for this article:
Conrad Mieschke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD was closed because I had pinged those who had previously commented on its notability, which was judged to have tainted the discussion. Hopefully we can get it resolved this time. Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 02:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Donachie

Jacqueline Donachie (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 may be missing something, but I do not see notability here ,despite the Herald article DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Well, the nominator gives her the Herald article and I think that THIS counts to GNG. That gets us to the very loose definition of "multiple" presumably reliable, independent, published sources that we need to see for a subject to meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 02:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Shirley Braha

AfDs for this article:
Shirley Braha (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)

Media personality with extremely superficial coverage. (Sorry, didn't notice the 2 prior AfDs until now, but I having now looked again I still think the coverage's not there.) EEng (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financière de l'Echiquier

Financière de l'Echiquier (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 eviden ce of notability. deleted fin 2008 rom the fr WP at [22] DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No
notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 14:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

EMMA for Peace

EMMA for Peace (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)

Seems a very worthy organisation but has it established its notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The subject meets criteria #4 of

WP:SKATER, having competed in the 2014 Skate America. This guideline states that satisfaction of one of the criteria therein equates to presumed notability. North America1000 01:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Maxime Deschamps

Maxime Deschamps (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 sports-person. No claim of notability and the single reference does not provide in depth coverage as per

Stuartyeates (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete perhaps the shortest Wikipedia article ever. Not notable.Purplethree (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could certainly stand to be longer than it is — but trust me, it's in no way setting any kind of record for shortness. Stubs of this length are actually quite common and I've seen much shorter too (people routinely try to get away with "John Smith is a writer, the end.") Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 08:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clíona Ní Chíosain

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She has some coverage, but not enough to meet

WP:GNG. Tagged by Fish and karate 7 years ago; hopefully we can now get some resolution. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am from Ireland and I can assure you that this actor is quite notable. For a while the show she stared in, Aifric, was TG4 flagship production. She remains quite prominent in Irish youth culture as well as Gaeltacht areas. Admittedly the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired but I am sure that sources can be found. I will note however that the Irish Independent, which is listed, is a good source and is relevant. This article should be kept as it is both relevant and notable for Ireland. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have done some work on the article expanding it and adding sources. It certainly no longer fail on
WP:GNG as indicated by the significant coverage in Irish media sources I have included, eg. The Independent. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep A notable actress in an underrepresented area of Wikipedia. Thriley (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

(｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Rajesh Sharma (traumatologist)

Rajesh Sharma (traumatologist) (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)

Unsourced, fails Notability guidelines - could not find any reliable source Strong delete. Recreation of previously deleted article [30]. Jethwarp (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Simon (Upcoming film)

Simon (Upcoming film) (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 appears to be a

hoax; a careful Gsearch comes up with nothing. It doesn't help that the article was created by DevelopmerntOfSimonMovie1 (and "development" isn't even spelled correctly). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hartney

Jordan Hartney (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 seems borderline, but I don't think he quite meets

for 7 years, hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SkillTwins

SkillTwins (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was No sources or references (beyond their own page) are offered to support the information in the article or otherwise indicate notability. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 01:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Rosegreen GAA

Rosegreen GAA (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 added two references from local coverage, but I couldn't find anything to support

WP:GNG. Tagging the editor who tagged it for notability (7 years ago!) Fabrictramp, and Pmunited, who has edited this and is an expert in this area).Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Bibliothèque Municipale de Riom

Bibliothèque Municipale de Riom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Libraries are not inherently notable. I could find no in depth coverage. Note there is no corresponding article in French. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 15:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 01:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Intervals (software)

Intervals (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about non-notable software. The only source I could find was a press release. Fails

WP:GNG. - MrX 14:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I removed all the info that was self-referenced (to Pelago). The other two sources seem to have some kind of editorial control, but I am really not sure without further checking. Also, the citations might or might not be phony. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice to re-creation if sufficient in-depth sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark art

Dark art (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)

Cannot find

WP:RS discussing this subject significantly. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided What the article describes is certainly real and notable. It's not clear if sources use that name for it to the degree that would justify an article, or if maybe there is already a better article under another name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cherry Hill. North America1000 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Hill, New Jersey (disambiguation)

Cherry Hill, New Jersey (disambiguation) (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)

Unneeded DAB, since it is primarily best known as the township. The community in Bergen County has been redirected but is not mentioned on the New Bridge Landing page, as a side note. Tinton5 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl oh hello! 06:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Sangirardi Wardal

Federico Sangirardi Wardal (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 considered putting a prod up for this but doing this instead. I looked around nobody under this name appears on the film Casanova with this name. Only one person I can find with that name (or rather close to it) and had just one role total. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep-it does not say he was in the Federico Fellini film even! (I had to undo the page creators edit to the film Casanova as he listed him as the main star!) Wgolf (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Perlman

Mark Perlman (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 article unsourced and therefore information could not be verified Fresh Sullivan (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ISBN 978-0-8108-4160-4
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_19&oldid=1142223388"