Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 20 April 22 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 keep. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, as it appears as though there is enough material out there to keep it, but it likely exists in other languages. (

talk) 23:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1582 Cagayan battles

1582 Cagayan battles (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 received a ticket today on OTRS (#2015041610032721) where the person requested that it be deleted. I decided to do some background research on Google, and other than a few mirror sites and one YouTube video that seems to have been done after this page popped up. Furthermore, there is a lack of any real mentions online, other than brief blips when using Google, so I also have my doubts about whether this even existed or not, especially since the only citations on the article are for the top part, with the "battle" information being completely uncited.

talk) 23:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - There are multiple references of this conflict in reliable sources:
Dennis Owen Flynn; Arturo Giráldez; James Sobredo (January 2001). European Entry Into the Pacific: Spain and the Acapulco-Manila Galleons. Ashgate. p. 141.
ISBN 978-0-7546-0152-4
.
Gregorio F. Zaide (1957). The Philippines since pre-Spanish times.-v. 2. The Philippines since the British invasion. Philippine Education Company. p. 288.
Contemporary Japan: A Review of Japanese Affairs. Foreign affairs association of Japan. 1942. p. 425.
Therefore this is not a
significant coverage to the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfortunately, those are only snippet views, and don't have access to the books, to see how much coverage are in those books on the subject of this AfD. If I had preview views, I might add them, but at this point I do not unfortunately.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The battle details are made-up and do not match e.g. Robert J. Antony (2010). Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas. Hong Kong University Press. p. 82-83.. According to the book Carrion intimidated the pirate leader and the pirates left without a fight.
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 deletion (A10). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coursera as a Technological Artefact for Learning

Coursera as a Technological Artefact for Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be evaluating the efficacy of

original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:03, 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technological Artefacts for Learning

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

This article appears to be positing the possible use of various technologies as a teaching tool. While it is clear that technology can be (and is) used in teaching all the time, the author appears to be drawing original conclusions from the given source, constituting

original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD
. This article and the others related to it are flagged for speedy deletion. They are opinion-based essays and all contain original research. The CSD criterion I used, however, is that the pages are duplicates of existing pages. The only factual information in any of the articles can be found elsewhere, for example in Raspberry Pi. Roches (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under
    Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Esquivalience t 02:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete, essay, inappropriate for Wikipedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 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 speedy deletion (A10). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook as a Technological Artefact for Learning

Facebook as a Technological Artefact for Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be positing the possible use of Facebook as a teaching tool. The fact that this use is not currently employed, but that the author has done research indicating that it could be used for this purpose consitutes

original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:57, 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 delete. North America1000 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Shah Mouhmed Lahori

Nawab Shah Mouhmed Lahori (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 sure about notability about this guy-or when he was around either. Says he is a landlord (yeah not that notable) and a politician-but is he notable though? Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as a note I have tried to find anything about him but basically just wiki mirrors or people with the same name. Wgolf (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to a BLP prod-but since I wasn't sure if the guy was alive or not also it was made before 2010. Wgolf (talk) 20:03, 29 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 07:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Kane-Berman

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

No indication that Kane-Berman is

notable. The article doesn't cite any independent sources, and I couldn't find any. He's an active commenter on South African politics and society, but I see no indication anybody has written about Kane-Berman in some detail. Huon (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Just about every result I'm getting are for people named John Kane or John Berman! Wgolf (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:20, 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

Gülbahar Hatun. Any merger from the history is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  10:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ayşe Hatun I

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

The article title seems to be a wikipedia invention: none of the sources give her a numeral. Also, the woman in this article is the fourth wife of Bayezid II and the daughter of Alaüddevle Bozkurt Bey, the eleventh ruler of the Dulkadirids. However,

talk) 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foil (band)

AfDs for this article:
Foil (band) (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)

Utterly NN band without a label. I can't imagine why it was kept in its previous AFD. The Dissident Aggressor 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    Talk to my owner:Online 20:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish other volunteers had bothered to make a few more pages for the band members, so it could meet "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Foil obviously didn't tour/release much, but their roster clearly marks them as a mini supergroup of Seattle underground grunge and sludge. If we could find at least one point from
    WP:MUSICBIO, pages like this can be extraordinarily useful to readers trying to make sense of scene's very confusing member swapping timelines. Earflaps (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:BAND. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 30 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleph Objects

Aleph Objects (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)

They don't meet

WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Current article does not have any sources that remotely suggest notability. CorporateM (Talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • no vote I am owner of this company, so I'm not voting, but I thought I'd chime in. The present article looks like it was pulled from our website, and not many secondary sources. That doesn't mean there aren't any. As for being notable, our company produced the first hardware *ever* certified by the Free Software Foundation (who incidentally had a large role in the existence of wikipedia). Our printer is Editor's Choice of both PC Mag and Tom's Hardware, both major tech publications. We have also had many many reviews and articles over the last few years. We have been the *front page article* of the major newspaper the Denver Post, twice, plus other articles and blog posts there. We have a list of over 100 media references on our website here: https://www.lulzbot.com/news/in-the-media Jebba (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I don't understand just what it is that the FSF have certified here. Was it in respect of the printer's ability to produce parts? Or an open sourced ability for others to produce printers of this design? I'm also puzzled (other than US-centricity) as to why the FSF have singled this machine out over the RepRap, which has been pushing an open source agenda for ten years. I just don't see the FSF certification as being significant re notability – any issue of primacy is a very tenuous one about when it was recognised by the FSF, rather than a substantial one about Aleph being first to adopt such an approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know about FSF certifcation, I suggest reading about it on their site. (Meh, ok, a search of lulzbot on site:fsf.org turns up over 1,500 hits....) Anyway, here's the original article about the first certification they did. There are a lot more on their site of more recent products: http://www.fsf.org/news/hardware-certification-aleph-objects-lulzbot-3d-printer Jebba (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the very next tab I went to after this (I regularly search google for news about us), was ComputerWorld, a major tech publication of long standing. Their 3D printer reviewer writes: "the Lulzbot Mini remains my current benchmark for judging rival printers until a better one comes along". Just sayin'... http://www.computerworld.com/article/2910250/review-the-da-vinci-junior-is-the-easy-bake-oven-of-3d-printers.html Also, does market share count? I know you say everyone in their dog is making printers, but are all of them covered in market research reports such as the #1 in the industry Wohlers Report? Plus we get coverage in all the other ones covering the industry. Your dog printers aren't in there, I assure you (unfortunately, these reports aren't gratis). Jebba (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I make my own Lulzbot? Because I can make my own RepRap or Rostock. I rather expected that to be part of the FSF certification when I first read it, but it seems not. (I've never seen this as a useful thing to do, but it's a popular principle here, just down the road from Bath) Could {some long list of 3D printers} be similarly certified, if the FSF chose to? (ie do they meet the same criteria) Why did the FSF choose this one first? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may be OT... Yes, you can make your own LulzBot. We believe it is the most free/libre/open consumer product ever released. All development is done in the open. Our internal directories sync to the public every 30 minutes. We have over 100 gigs of data publicly accessible of released and development projects, visible at these sites: http://download.lulzbot.com/ http://devel.lulzbot.com/ We also have other various code up on github: http://github.com/alephobjects/ We released what was the first "full stack" release of a RepRap based on Prusa's famous design (back in 2011). Josef Prusa himself said it was the best one out there at the time. We publish everything, including production schedules, plans, daily production spreadsheets, the layout of our assembly lines, how we build wire harnesses, everything. I don't know of any company that comes close, tbh (but they may exist, I'm just realizing now how awesome the Spanish company BQ is). You can see our assembly line procedures for the LulzBot Mini here, for example: https://ohai-kit.alephobjects.com/group/mini/ As for the certification, perhaps read up on it. They can't just certify "RepRap". There is an audit performed, and we are required to build conforming with that. They can spot check, and even can get audited themselves. This is a formal certification (think "UL" or similar). We got it first because we did the work to get it all worked through. It was the FSF's first, and they move.real.slow. I assure you they take this very seriously. They know me from previous projects, so that likely helped assure them I would go through the whole process. Other RepRap systems could be FSF certified, but not necessarily all of them. In general, systems that are RAMBo based most likely conform with RYF, but they aren't certified unless the FSF reviews their gear to be what they say it is, and the manufacturer signs a document saying they will agree to RYF requirements. Jebba (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just piling on this wall of text. We also run one of largest 3D printer clusters in the world. This isn't a one off event. We are running 135 printers in a cluster (plus we have 10-20 in other various spots in the building). This cluster runs 24/5 and produces 75kg of finished parts per *day*. Here's an older (over a year ago) article about it: http://www.gizmag.com/tour-aleph-objects-lulzbot-factory-hq/31024/ There's other articles too. Tis notable? Jebba (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current article fails to demonstrate notability. If the article is to stay, then it needs to be a better article. Jebba - fancy reworking any of it as a draft (maybe under your own userspace)? I'm happy to "adopt" this (and copyedit) in any way that can help avoid COI concerns. In particular, it needs someone who is familiar with the subject to write an article with editorial narrative such that it explains why the Lulzbot is significant in what is now a crowded marketplace.
WP:Notability isn't that important - it's a simplistic measure that WP uses because it has to define some vaguely objective measure, but it's a matter of wikilawyering to make any article pass it, if you throw enough sources at it. Personally I'm not that fussed about it; a "notable" article can still be a bad article. Clearly in this case there are enough printed sources citeable to pass that hurdle. The real question is (and one I can't answer) is why does this printer matter? I certainly wouldn't support a view that, "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". So what does Aleph / Lulzbot have over and above these? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's another article published today: http://readwrite.com/2015/04/16/lulzbot-mini-reliable-3d-printer I guess one notable feature pointed out there is it actually works.  ;) Anyway, if you want to delete it, we'll be back. Jebba (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and we're going to be an episode on How_It's_Made on April 30th. So viewers there may want to look us up on wikipedia.... Jebba (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: notability, you state that you wouldn't support "each and every 3D printer receiving a review article is WP:Notable". Isn't that a straw man? I didn't realize anyone was arguing for that. How about companies that have *hundreds* of article citations and many many reviews spanning a few years from industry publications to major media? Would that work? If so, why not take down the "notability" notice you put on the page? Jebba (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Discussion so far fails to address the supplementary sources provided.  Sandstein  20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Color me unimpressed. If there are indeed "hundreds of article citations" about Aleph Objects, why hasn't Jebba posted some solid, reliable ones? There are numerous business publications that qualify, and the ones he's chosen to contribute to this AfD discussion are a combination of press releases and tech blogs. The one solid source I've seen is the Computerworld article, and that -- like a bunch of others -- are about products, not about the subject of the article. (An article on this LulzBot printer may well be sustainable, by contrast.)Weak Keep: I'm slightly more impressed with the links Jebba came up with from the Denver Post and NPR. They clear the bar for the company ... barely. (I'd still look more favorably on an article for LulzBot, for which there are far more sources.) Nha Trang Allons! 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't have my login here at work, but this is jebba. I get your point on the relevance of the LulzBot printer versus the company itself. I was just listing about the printer before. I didn't link to any press releases above, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The LulzBot articles included Tom's Guide, PC Magazine, Make Magazine, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox Business Network, Independent UK, etc. and many others on the URL linked above: https://www.lulzbot.com/news/in-the-media Note, that isn't an exhaustive list either. But I realize you want some more about the company itself, not the products the company makes. Here's some on the company: http://iq.intel.com/how-to-bring-3d-printing-to-the-masses/ http://companyweek.com/company-profile/aleph-objects We have been in both the print and electronic versions of the Denver Post multiple times. The Denver Post is the 9th largest newspaper in the USA, per wikipedia (
List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation). These two articles were on the FRONT PAGE of the print edition: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22513164/3d-printing-goes-big-help-lovelands-aleph-and http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27785837/3-d-printing-tech-gives-tortoise-new-life Here's some more about the company and how we operate: http://opensource.com/life/14/3/interview-Jeff-Moe-Aleph-Objects Here is a visit from US Congressman Jared Polis covered by the media, who has made multiple trips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h78mccaCWqM . (US Senator Michael Bennet has also visited, fwiw.) Perhaps primary source, but here's a note on the White House's website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-over-240-million-new-stem-commitmen Here's radio and web coverage on the local National Public Radio's affiliate: http://www.kunc.org/post/open-source-hardware-companies-blend-altruism-bottom-line Do you need more? 50.205.5.74 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Here's one today from Forbes "LulzBot 3D Printers: A Glimpse Into The Future of American Manufacturing". http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2015/04/30/lulzbot-3d-printers-a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-american-manufacturing/ 50.205.5.74 (talk) 14:23, 30 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Marie Williams

Carla Marie Williams (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 to fail

WP:GNG. Article is in fact a large coat rack and is hardly about the artist. No credits of her own. The Banner talk 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Banner. I've re-read the post with your points in mind, I have made edits to make it explicit that she is primarily a songwriter. RE: 'not talking about the artist', how do you suggest I make this more explicit, as I feel the whole article is written about her and she makes up the majority of the content? David r adams1 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner. Could you please remove the flag unless you still have questions or deem the article innapropriate, please respond. Thanks David r adams1 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just made one small cosmetic change without fixing the issues stated in the nomination. It is a long list of nice names with inappropriate external links in plain text, inappropriate sources (YouTube) and no info about ms. Williams and the tiny bit that is there is unsourced. Her singing career is with bands, not on her own account. Her writing edits are for co-writing, nothing on her own account and completely unsourced.
And you should not removed the AfD-template until after closure of this procedure, although usually this is done by the closer (not me). The Banner talk 12:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It appears to have been a one shot deal by single-purpose account David r adams1, who has not answered about better sourcing at Talk:Carla Marie Williams, nor seem to have edited since 22 April. She is not a producer, she works for one. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the claims are actually sourced, they should be removed, as per
    WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 30 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 02:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Clement (baseball)

John Clement (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)

Fails both

WP:NOLYMPICS. Baseball was only a demonstration sport in 1956, and Clement does not have a Sports-Reference Olympics page. I found a similar discussion, which resulted in a merger to that particular demonstration sport's page from that year, so maybe a merge could be possible. Penale52 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 22:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't disqualify him on the basis of Olympics being only a demonstration sport, but as there are no real RSes for him, not even in Baseball Reference, (just a game summary and an obituary which reads to me like it was written by a family member), I don't see a basis for keeping. That said, if someone could provide some significant RS, I'd be willing to rely on his Olympic appearance to presume that there is more and enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 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 no consensus. Nakon 02:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birol Güven

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

effectively unsourced BLP The Banner talk 14:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references and no links for projects to show nobility. --Steverci (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important figure at modern Turkish film industry. He's a producer, writer and actor. An art creator. He's the only notable producer. See it here: http://www.eba.gov.tr/dergi/goster/767 & http://haber.yasar.edu.tr/dizilere-hayat-verenler-yasarda/ & http://kurumsal.okan.edu.tr/basin/80ler-ekibi-okan-universitesi-ogrencileriyle-bir-araya-geldi --Kafkasmurat (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should certainly be more sourced. But this is no reason to delete it.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, according to
WP:BLP the lack of sources is a reason for deletion. The Banner talk 18:16, 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, Nakon 01:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added new sources. More will be added soon. --ABmint (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— ABmint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:24, 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 02:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Nigeria epidemic

2015 Nigeria epidemic (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 because Wikipedia is not news.

WP:NOTNEWS. The methanol poisoning of 18 youths is news, but it is only of passing interest, and is better dealt with, if at all, in the article on Ode-Irele, or mentioned as an example at Methanol#Toxicity. See Winsor, Morgan (21 April 2015). "Nigeria's Mysterious Epidemic Linked To Contaminated Alcohol And Methanol Poisoning, Not Ebola". International Business Times. and "Disease Outbreak In Ondo State Is Punishment From The 'gods'". Nigeria News. 21 April 2015. Bejnar (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't realize it was just a case of methanol poisoning when i created the article and i agree that it should be deleted. Drunk in Paris (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bejnar and Drunk in Paris. It's good to know the creator has now realised that the article now has a wrong information. It helps to keep updated about events before determining whether to create articles about them. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:22, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies

Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies (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 referenced entirely by sources connected to the subject (Princeton website and a press release). No evidence the Institute has been the subject of

significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if it will be notable in the future, there is no evidence it is notable now. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The article has no independent citations, and it is not even listed on
WP:RS citations. If Center of International Studies no longer exists, is there any pressing reason for it to remain as a separate article? Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 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 03:08, 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 20:17, 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 Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Weist

Michael Weist (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 subject which does not meet

WP:BIO. SPA account repeatedly removed speedy tags. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page shows proper citation and shows notability. Shouldn't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie123456790 (talk • contribs) Preceding copied from article talk page

This page is properly cited and uses 3rd party sources to establish credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie123456790 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, it has general links to 3 websites, a link to their Twitter account (which is not a
WP:BIO, so Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 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 02:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shit (band)

Shit (band) (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 fails on

WP:GNG. Hitro talk 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 22:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 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 Redirect. To whatever the appropriate list article may be. Nobody here has mentioned it.  Sandstein  08:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1538 Detre

1538 Detre (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 it meets

WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 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, Nakon 03:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This one has a bit of an unusual observational history: it was discovered in 1940, but then lost and not rediscovered until 1980 [1] [2]. That's all I found in the way of specific studies of this object, but it may be enough to save this article from being just a name and some orbital elements. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 17 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 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: per Praemonitus. That the thing was lost and subsequently rediscovered isn't "unusual" at all -- that happens sometimes in astronomy. It's certainly not any measure of notability. Nha Trang Allons! 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to moan Praemonitus & NukeThePukes but it would help if you state where you want it redirected, As someone who is clueless to all of this I have no idea where "the list page" is...... –Davey2010Talk 01:05, 29 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 by

WP:G4 (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

PhilJets Group

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

Fails

WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 19:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan International Bank

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

Does not appear to pass

WP:CORP. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 05:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
buzz 05:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
buzz 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep – Meets
    WP:CORPDEPTH
    . Source examples:
Also of note is that The Wall Street Journal describes the company as "one of the country's biggest lenders" (in Afghanistan), (link). North America1000 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Bank has its branches in

Kabul City
.

Afghanistan International Bank
Founded2004
HeadquartersKabul, Afghanistan
Websitehttp://www.aib.af
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – After some edits, the present page version does not contain copyright violations of the press release listed above (See Earwigs Copyvio Detector report). Of note is that substantial content remains in the article after the cleanup, contrary to the delete !vote above. Page versions with copyvio problems can be Revision deleted, instead of the entire article having to be deleted. North America1000 11:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your thoroughness. Sadly, there are no archives of AIB's website at archive.org to compare. Since half of the initial version is a known copyvio, normal procedure is to doubt the rest, and rewrite it. On re-rereading
WP:CV, I don't see any reason to delete or revdelete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:38, 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, North America1000 07:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with thanks to Northamerica1000's efforts the article now meets
    Mailer Diablo 17:31, 21 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 19:11, 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 merge to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological Sciences

University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological 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)

No specific notability. This is not a first-order division of the university, but only a single department within the CUniversity'sCollege of Arts and Sciences. No notable faculty or alumni are listed. essentially no third-party references. It's already mentioned in the article on the college, and I see no need for a redirect any more than any other within-college program, especially since the heading starts with the same name--nobody looking for it could miss it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 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 08:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to
    WP:ATD that would enhance the merge target article. North America1000 08:44, 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 19:06, 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 merge to

List of minor planets/1701–1800. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1702 Kalahari

AfDs for this article:
1702 Kalahari (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)

Hoping for greater participation this time so we can get a consensus; will inform Wikiproject.This does have mentions in articles and databases, but they do not add up to

WP:NASTRO. As this has been sitting tagged for notability for over 3 years, it could really do with a consensus being reached. Pinging Tom.Reding, Avicennasis. Praemonitus and exoplanetaryscience also participated in last (very recent) AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:NASTRO. I was unable to find any research that provides non-trivial detail about this object. At first I thought there was an entire publication about it [3] but on closer examination it looks like just an entry in a database that someone once saw a need to cite individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 17 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 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect per
    WP:DWMP: While it was the subject of a light curve study,[4] and is mentioned in a few scholarly journal articles, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Martín Sámano

AfDs for this article:
José Martín Sámano (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 verify that he meets

WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, unresolved. Last AfD closed as no consensus because it attracted zero comments; let's hope we can have a full discussion this time. Notifying Fabrictramp who tagged the article for notability and Fisheriesmgmt who opened 1st AfD, as well as creator. Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-odd that it appears he has no Spanish wiki page. Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind he does it was just never linked to the English one! Not sure what I stand on him right now though. Wgolf (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a Spanish rticle, but it is poorly sourced, e.g. using Twitter as a reference. It didn't further confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 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 10:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer Can I ask that as this has already had an AfD closed because of poor participation, and because it has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is repeatedly re-listed rather than just closed as no consensus due to poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IF they wernt noteable 7 years ago and there still no signs of them being noteable now it seems quite reasonable that they arent. Amortias (T)(C) 11:16, 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 19:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm seeing articles in the Spanish-language press from the subject, but none about the subject. I'd say this was a GNG fail. Nha Trang Allons! 17:24, 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. Nakon 02:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michiaki Furuya

Michiaki Furuya (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)

Voice over actor who does not seem to pass wiki guidelines for bios Wgolf (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 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. Nakon 02:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saha Gun (film)

Saha Gun (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)

Non-notable film, fails

WP:NFILM. ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ALT:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marathi:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete for failing
    TOO SOON. Marathi title "सहा गुण" tranlates as "preserved endurance" (unhelpful) and "Saha Gun" gives no reliable sources, but does lead us to production's Facebook page. IF this is ever completed, released, AND gains requisite coverage (even if Non-English, an undeletion can be considered. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:07, 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 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asexual Colony

Asexual Colony (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)

Prod whose deletion tag was removed by a IP's only edit. Anyway I can't seem to find any notability for this novel at all. Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet

WP:GNG, a google search brings up nothing of note, just lots of sites based on this article (or is it the other way around:))Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 24 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.  Sandstein  15:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AUX (AUdio syntaX)

AUX (AUdio syntaX) (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)

Minor special-purpose programming language. Doesn't seem to meet

WP:NSOFT
. Described in a peer-reviewed paper, but the number of citations of that paper is low (4 on GS, of which 2 self-citations).

PROD declined by page author Bjkwon. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this--I don't even know what PROD means. But after browsing policies and other articles, I agree with the concerns about the notability of this article, raised by Qwertyus. After all, it was not a good idea to write an wiki article of something I originally did. Please go ahead and delete the article. I'm sure, in the future, whenever it reaches its critical mass, this article will be written by someone with better sources for notability. Thanks! Bjkwon (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjkwon: thanks for your understanding (and sorry for the jargon)! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "minor" and "special purpose" are not valid reasons for deletion. Also does
    WP:RS now ignore peer review in reputable journals in favour of citation counting. News to me. Explains our extensive Justin Bieber coverage though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]


  • @Andy Dingley: there is precedence for using citation scores as a proxy for the available of secondary sources and for regarding authors' papers about their own inventions as primary. See, e.g., Identifier Network and in particular Mark viking's comment on mwetoolkit. I think David Eppstein at some point remarked that he wants published evidence that at least two groups have spent significant effort on a method/invention/software, and I tend to agree with that, although this is not a formal guideline. In this case, two citations are self-citations; one is a bachelor's thesis; the final one is a peer-reviewed paper that only acknowledges use of the software without providing in-depth coverage. ("Minor" is just my shorthand way of expressing this; "special-purpose" is descriptive, not a reason for deletion.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only source we have on this is primary and has been cited only four times in Google scholar. Two of those four are papers authored or co-authored by Kwon, the creator of this language; one is a bachelor's thesis supervised by Kwon, and the remaining one is by a co-author of Kwon. Additionally, at least two of the four (including the one not directly involving Kwon) don't mention AUX itself, but rather mention (very briefly) the Psycon software package coming from the same reference. Re my suggestion mentioned above about publications by multiple independent groups: this is my interpretation of
    WP:GNG's "multiple sources are generally expected" as it applies in this case. Additionally, formal languages such as this one can be notable by other means than through academic publications and citations, but we have no evidence of this in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 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. Nakon 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jirschele

Justin Jirschele (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)

Unless I'm reading the guidelines wrongly, or there's something missing from this article (which I can't find), I don't think this person is notable. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 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. Nakon 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Pierce

Chuck Pierce (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:LINKSTOAVOID). – Fayenatic London 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

While it's true that there are few biographical links to Chuck Pierce, there are (many) hundreds of interviews, conference appearances, books and the like. It's not quite accurate to call the sources that were added primary sources (although some certainly are). I would think that the references showing Pierce's appearances on Syd Roth's show, Patricia King's show and the many, many articles on Elijah list would be sufficient to show that he's sufficiently notable to merit an article. Waitak (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lacking independent/significant sourcing. Fails GNG, ANYBIO or other suitable SNGs. Cavarrone 09:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This reads as if the subject had a one-man ministry, who manages to get on to TV shows occasionally. Basically it reads like the bio of yet another NN minister of relgion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 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 delete. Nakon 02:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Rush

Ed Rush (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)

Obscure self-published musician, without a notable record label. www.residentadvisor.net is pretty much the only non-performance announcement/advertisement source found. This guy doesn't even have a website on a non-free site. The Dissident Aggressor 18:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's not a requirement that an artiste's label be notable. However we do need independent coverage, and I can't see it. There's about as much coverage on Soundcloud etc. as we'd expect from a musician who's been busy making stuff, but we want more than this - reviews. Can't see those (Which isn't to say they aren't out there for those who know better where to look than I do). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was the one that removed the Speedy tag (with reluctance) as notability is "asserted" but not demonstrated or sourced. Glen 05:53, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant Kumar Shukla

Dushyant Kumar Shukla (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 not in English. Lucky102 (talk) 18:13, 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

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 02:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1969 Alain

1969 Alain (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:GNG; should be deleted and redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 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 keep. (

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

MyFreeCams.com

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:CORP. Pax 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Pandeist is the article's creator, and with a page at the site, may have
WP:COI
.
But only by happenstance. Pandeist (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. How would that possibly be a COI? It's a social media page, like my Facebook page and my Twitter page. Am I not allowed to edit Facebook and Twitter for having pages on the site? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way.... Pandeist (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rarely have I seen a longer list of unreliable sources for a Wikipedia article. There is not one substantial reliable independent source to support the significance of this me-too website, just a lot of press releases recycled in tabloids. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the New York Times is a "tabloid"? [5] GuzzyG (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is one of the biggest cam sites on the planet. It's won industry awards, its Alexa tracked and fairly high ranked, and is sourced by the mainstream press. I'm not saying this article doesn't need clean up, but the attention the site has received regarding Alexa/Alexandria Morra and "Library Girl" Kendra Sunderland seems enough to source it. --
    (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Library Girl" was
WP:1E, and specific mentions of the site she used (do any industry independent sources even name it?) would be passing mentions anyway. (Otherwise, being #574 on Alexa doesn't make one an automatic shoo-in.) Pax 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Ebay is #5. YouTube is #3. Meanwhile, myfreecams is now #581 and dropping like a stone. Why, a fellow could be forgiven for thinking they desperately need the free advertizing on Wikipedia to keep the good times running another quarter on fumes. (They've lost half their global Alexa ranking in just the last year.) Pax 07:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree with any of what you have just stated, but it doesn't change the fact that there are roughly 999,999,000 other websites that wish they ranked as high as MFC. --
(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not a
reliable source, and it's a trivial mention. Pax 02:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
So find a better source. And by the way Miami New Times is a reliable source on the page. Pandeist (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a one-sentence trivial mention in the fourteenth paragraph. Please visit the links in my previous reply. Pax 03:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the New York Time article under the external links? Whole thing is about the MFC experience. Pandeist (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course... --
(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:22, 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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Twentieth Century Zoo

AfDs for this article:
Twentieth Century Zoo (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)

2nd incarnation of non notable band's AFD. Article is a recreation and still does not justify notability of article. Fails

WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Band was an early influence in garage punk which I did refer to. Tell all the articles depending on early influence as their notability like

Mystic Tide... (shall I continue, the list goes on) that being the earliest influence is not notable than they should be deleted too. Also, the Allmusic article about them was written by Richie Unterberger, one of the most respected and prominent music critics, so he too was aware enough of their notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk
) 16:13, 20 April 2015

More - First psychedelic rock band of Phoenix (addresses issue of WP: BAND), signed to major label, reoccurring sources verifying notability, re-released material (addresses WP:GNG) This goes along with my statements above. Like I said, if this band isn't notable neither is the countless list of bands I only chipped the iceberg off of. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even More! : Also, the user's statement that this is a "recreation" is also false. The issue with the last page was it did not offer references and directly copied from the ones it did use. It would have stayed if someone rewrote it, as mentioned in the past discussions. So, as a result, I have reliable references and the writing is not copied from any text. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2015

The actual article nominated for deletion was apparently a whole different article than the current one (but on the same band). This one is only a few months old, whereas that one was nominated for deletion in 2008. The old article may not have been as well-sourced. So, it wouldn't be best to keep the current article and build it up into being the best article possible? Garage rock aficionados, by their very nature (and by the very nature of the genre they follow), have a keen interest in bands from a long time ago that are usually practically unknown to most people. They want to have resources and biographies to learn about such bands, and an encyclopedia can chronicle the original purveyors of what is essentially an ethnographic folk music. We shouldn't apply the same standard of notability of a unique smaller band from fifty years ago who has a specialist/interest collector/fan base to more a more recent Holiday Inn act playing mainstream Karaoke fare that is unlikely to ever have any collectable interest with music lovers. There is a difference.
It is amazing that people are still discussing this band fifty years later. And, keep in mind that this band came from a pre-internet, pre-cable TV, pre-MTV, pre-digital era, when it was not as easy to self-promote--long after the moths ate many of the pictures and newspaper articles that may now be forever lost--and, by the way, there was a lot more competition from other bands back then. Wiki needs to establish a set of guidelines for dealing with certain kinds of historical acts of specialist interest. While I shouldn't pretend to speak for anyone else, I think I remember
talk) 00:57, 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. No doubt about it the article does need alot of improving/expanding but notability is there... (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Basil Soda

Basil Soda (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: does not reach threshold of

notability, largely promotional in nature. Speedy deleted once before. Quis separabit? 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is notable as a Lebanese designer who achieved international recognition. The New York Times article in the references is a very strong source. When he died, a Google News search ran quite a number of obituaries in the international press. I also see an article on Highbeam which lists him among the significant Lebanese fashion designers of the time. There is also an article on him in L'Officiel from 2007 that is viewable as a snippet here. There's clear evidence that sources exist. This article needs improvement, not deletion. Mabalu (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep stock the mini bar with it - This article is not promotional in nature. the author has no more need to promote Basil Soda. than, he does to promote Cilantro Fizz.. The subject was a noted designer who showed his designs on catwalks allover the world which were in turn worn by many notable women..... This is being promoted for deletion for the point of gaining points for an exclusion. Boy I feel like
    Dr. Mehmet Oz OY! Masterknighted (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Stronger keep. There are reliable sources provided to establish notability. Could use some expansion if possible, but this is definitely a notable designer. Tinton5 (talk) 19:50, 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 redirect to

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

St Martin's School, Northwood

St Martin's School, Northwood (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)

Why the page should be deleted Factuous (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why This Page Should Be Deleted

Hi there!

Excuse me if I have made any mistakes, this is my first time submitting a page for deletion. The page is without adequate sources (relying entirely on primary sources, as other users have pointed out). I looked into this, and found that it was virtually impossible to find any that establish the school's notability, making it naturally unworthy of a Wikipedia page. The skill with which the article was written seems indicative of someone aged 3-13, and perhaps this is why the tone of the document seems closer to an advertisement, far removed from the impartial tone expected of Wikipedia. 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is common practice to redirect non-notable schools to their localities, in this case
    List of schools in Hillingdon#Independent schools, where the school is already listed, may be a better target. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story

AfDs for this article:
NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story (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 appears to fail notability— see

WP:FILMNOT. Most references turn out to be either dead links or have failed to verify. Remaining ones are not independent of the subject or are vanity refs. Bronze Telly awards are probably not reliable evidence of notability. Previous deletion discussion was inconclusive, but given current haziness of notability, deletion now seems appropriate. KDS4444Talk 16:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per interesting discussion at earlier AFD that resulted in no consensus. Notability is weak due to the film's target audience, but I will note though that for its genre it has more awards than just "some", and for a specialized documentary about youth wrestling that fact is surprising. Even weak notability is none-the-less, still a notability. As small-budget independent documentaries never have the distribution and press of the big budget studio blockbusters, we look instead to what the film is, and what organization felt it was worth awarding, and why. Awards are simply one of the criteria I am looking at. And while the
    Dove Foundation,[17] School Library Journal,[18] and the Julian Radbourne areview on X-Headlines (link found though wayback machine) push it just over the edge for me for this independent documentary film. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It appears you have copied and pasted most of that text from the last deletion discussion. I do not want to copy and paste the responses it got because we are trying to have a new discussion, not replay the old one. Can you give a brief new summary of your Keep vote reasoning? Thanks. With regard to the awards, however: the Aegis award itself does not appear to be a notable award, and the page you found listing winners (thanks for finding it) looks like has nearly 200 recipients in 2006 alone (also, from the Aegis web site: "To win an Aegis Award is an outstanding achievement -- worthy of getting the attention of clients and employers."— to me, this translates to, "Pay us some money and we will make you look like you won something"... That is not winning an award, that is just purchasing attention); the New York festival awards have been heavily criticized for their own lax entry requirements and $300 entry fee (i.e., it is a profit-generator for its producers, not a genuinely competitive award); The Accolade award article has no sources in it other than a link to the official website and looks like it may also have no genuine notability of its own. The non-competitive nature of the Tellys was discussed in the last AfD discussion. I would be happy to see one source/ award from a verifiably notable organization at the national or international level that was clearly competitive in nature. Instead, what I am seeing are awards from non-notable organizations, or awards that are not competitive, which makes a notability claim appear rather thin to me, and there does not appear to be coverage of the film elsewhere other than routine reviews (again, these are discussed in the last AfD). KDS4444Talk 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion about awards can just as easily be applied to the money machines of Oscars and Cannes. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.... rather than have another back-and-forth bandying like that last AFD, I copied and modified my still-valid arguments. However, back and forth bantering seems fated. I was interested that rather than
invalid reationals, so is allowable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Some follow-up: the Aegis awards apparently were taking in around $90,000 a year in application fees, and the winners of these awards, selected by a never-named panel of industry specialists, receives... a certificate. And if they want to pay more money, a trophy. And the recognition, of course. (Aegis has since closed down.) I could find nothing about the video industry's emphasis on the value of these awards, which further increases my suspicion that they are not considered important. The Accolade awards run along the same lines: pay us a fee and we will give you an award. The Accolades aren't even competitive awards: they are assigned based on the merits of each submission. Winning one isn't exactly evidence of notability. KDS4444Talk 16:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NF is met. Is the notability as overwhelming and extreme as a big-budget major-studio blockbuster? Nope. Is it notable enough for inclusion herein? Yes. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Incorrect
    reliable enough for a small budget independent documentary film. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Incorrect
    reliable enough for a independent small-budget film. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a popularity only contest. I'll grant this is not Red Army (film), but small indy documentary films aren't the same as those with big money. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It is not Joanna (2013 film) or The Reaper (2013 film) either; the issue isn't small and low budget indy documentaries, its coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it had but only one source anywhere, I would even suggest it needed more myself... but it has
WP:NF . Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, doesn't. Read
WP:NF#Other evidence of notability again. --Bejnar (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
great detail
:
  1. WP:NF
    tells us us "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow,
  2. and then
    WP:NF#General principles
    expands "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list".
  3. WP:OEN
    clarifies that "Other evidence of notability" are not mandates, but are "are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist".
  4. So, and no matter who gave them,
    verifiably
    winning an "award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" was an indicator that sources "might" exist.
And in then searching and finding sources that dealt with the topic directly and in detail, I determined we have a meeting of
WP:GNG... even for a rather crappy film. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:28, 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 delete. Nakon 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nesar (poet)

Ahmad Nesar (poet) (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 fails

WP:BIO. There are no independent reliable sources provided. The only source is (now was) a self-published blurb on merinews which is signed by the same person who created this article. A search finds only mirrors of WP and the Merinews source. (NOTE:This article has been prodded but creator removed prod as well as the refs, then changed their name at merinews page. Therefore, I decided to bring this to AFD for consensus rather than go back and forth with another BLPProd.) — CactusWriter (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim made to notability as a poet or as a journalist. No references for verifiability. No reliable sources found. --Bejnar (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sole source I can locate does not appear to be RS [25], several other sites have the same text. It's just not enough to go on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now that it is same source Nom found. Article's creator seems to have created a string of poorly sourced articles. Useless without sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 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 merge to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Thomas F. Olin, Jr.

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

The flagging of this piece for "Notability" has escalated into a situation at AN/I. The way to decide the matter is to put it up to dispassionate debate. I have no strong opinions one way or the other about whether the piece should stand or go but leave it to the community for decision. Be aware that there is a more fulsome version of the article in the edit history and that the current version has been stubbed out due to apparently COI-driven unsourced content. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i thought about that but there are really no sources for biographical information (i looked, checked lexisnexus, etc). most of the content is about how the company performed under Jr.'s leadership. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment here as I was original editor (and I respect the changes that other editors have made to the article) but there is a disconnect between the subject and the company's performance during his tenure. As CEO, isn't this person responsible for the company's exceptional performance? Simply giving credit where credit is due? FMIArchive (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your connection to the company or the subject of the article? BMK (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • BMK, I suspect that, based on the editorial similarities (identical grammar, syntax, tone, you name it), subject preferences, familiarity with Wikipedia policy and culture, and their political posturing, the connection is that FMIArchive is a sock of Tolinjr, created specifically so that he can write his own Wikipedia entry. Sad. I'll raise an SPI when I get chance to document all this. Pyrope 18:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although Tolinjr denies being FMIArchive, I'd be interested in seeing the results of that SPI. BMK (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Olin, Jr. states he thinks it is a family member that started the article on him as a tribute, so we should be careful that the SPI doesn't assume more than it should. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Archway Cookies. Article content and sources all relate to the company, and no independent notability has been demonstrated for this article's subject. Pyrope 17:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:58, 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.

Steve Soliz

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) Withdrawing the nomination. I somehow failed to notice that Soliz is now a bullpen coach. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Soliz (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)

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass

WP:GNG and, from what I could find, Soliz doesn't. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:31, 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.

Snow close). North America1000 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The need for gender roles

The need for gender roles (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, delete per

WP:NOTESSAY. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essay. Also, I'm pretty sure this has been deleted before. ubiquity (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the deletion logs, but it probably had a different name. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:05, 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 speedy delete - copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdwara Lal Khooh

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

This article does not cite any sources. Supdiop (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 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 speedy keep. Procedural close - "This article does not cite any sources" indicates the nominator hasn't in the slightest followed

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Yuvakshetra college

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

This article does not cite any sources. Supdiop (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly exists and is a degree-awarding institution, which we keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. I've cleaned it up and added a link to its website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 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. No objection to recreating the article should

reliable sources become available. Nakon 01:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Kalay Chor

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

This article does not cite any sources. Supdiop (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 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 01:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Sharma of Red Chilli Adventure

Vipin Sharma of Red Chilli Adventure (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 independent reliable sources for this BLP: linked sources only passing mentions, primary sources, user content (Trip Advisor), or not mentioned at all. Searches reveal more of a Bollywood personality Vipin Sharma. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS.
WP:A7 nominated by @Narutolovehinata5: and removed by @122.163.50.236:. Pinging both. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually moved the page to a better disambiguation should it be kept, but I agree this does not have the reliable sources to back up anything notable about this person. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More source searches below. North America1000 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Basedow

John Basedow (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 person fails

reliable sources exist on the person; most sources I could found were self-published or selling websites (e.g. Amazon) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment There's an (old) copyright issue [26] that may or may not still be relevant. Widefox; talk 09:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've checked
    WP:BIO is a long way from being met. SmartSE (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 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 Speedy Deleting under G11

RockyBytes.com

RockyBytes.com (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)

Yet another Windows freeware site, with no indication of notability per

Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Speedy. Speedily speedy delete this speedy advertising of RockyBytes per the speedy deletion criteria under G11, which speedily gives out speedy irrefutable proof this article may and must be speedily deedily deleted. And be speedy with it. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 07:22, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

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

One minor product, no different from others of the type except for having a touch screen. not notable DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nom, seems like a promotional page thrown together for their one product. Little independent coverage. Most cites are standard investment snapshots, which we haven't counted as significant secondary coverage in the past. BakerStMD 00:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - We don't judge notability based on accomplishments, but rather based on coverage. The company is listed on the NASDAQ, which doesn't make it "automatically notable" but which does virtually guarantee tons of reliable source coverage. Not surprisingly, a quick search verifies such coverage exists. Pinging @Oo7565: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I wonder if others agree that the significant market-related coverage that Tamdem has been getting as cited by ThaddeusB above represents significant secondary coverage. While there are certainly multiple independent sources mentioning it, they aren't really analyzing the company so much as providing the same short bio of the company to accompany a discussion of the fluctuations in stock price. This coverage seems less notable to me, but I am happy to be persuaded otherwise. BakerStMD 16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will refer you to
WP:LISTED: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." (bold added) In other words, the consensus-based guideline says the analysis of financials is just as valid for establishing notability as reports of business activity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 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, North America1000 09:07, 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) 06:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails
    WP:NCORP. I may have stopped looking too early, but all the articles I saw in ThaddeusB's search were either press releases, coverage of an insider trader employed by the company, or routine coverage of stock price activity. Stock price activity exists for any company on the market. ThaddeusB, could you maybe point us to a reliable independent secondary source providing significant coverage of the company? ― Padenton|✉   03:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
First you have to be kidding when you claim that there are no reliable, independent sources. You can try to claim they are "routine", but to say they aren't independent and/or reliable is nonsense.
As to whether the sources are routine, let me again point out that guidelines specifically say analyst reports are valid sources to establish notability. They are very carefully researched and given extensive information on the business activities of a business. This makes perfect sense as people rely on them to make investment decisions. I would suggest they are much better sources than media reports on average. I am not sure why you (and Bakerstmd) which to discount such sources, but there is absolutely no policy-based justification for doing so. Wikipedia cares only that a source is reliable, not why it was produced.
It occurs to me that maybe people are unfamiliar with what an analyst report entails. Here is a sample report. As you can see it provides investment info, yes, but also provides extensive background information about the company. Now, these reports are not normally free so I can't link to one for Tandem, but I can show you dozens exist. Your local library probably subscribes to some of the major ones if you really insist on verifying they cover Tandem in detail. I assure you they do. These are the sources that really establish notability. The news link was offered as a convenience to show an abundance of coverage exists. That people can still think a company no-notable in the face of 1000+ news articles baffles me.
Keeping in mind that analysis is not normally free: Here is some analyis on the IPO. Here is Bloomberg's extensive write-up of the company. Here is Reuters. Those alone easily establish notability - all are reliable and extensive. There are plenty of news sources too, like those on FDA approval of products, that aren't routine.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a trend at AfD to dismiss reliable sources as press releases and advertisements, which happened at another publicly-traded company Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks. The sources you've found here are more than enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you too ignore the NUMEROUS analyst reports which notability guidelines specifically list as valid sources. Additionally, "routine" business coverage, as defined by the guidelines refers to quality (brief, no analysis), not the reason for the coverage. In depth coverage ALWAYS establishes notability, regardless of the reason for the coverage. We judge notability based on the length and quality of the sources, not our personal opinion of whether a company deserved coverage or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nakon 01:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Lockridge

Evan Lockridge (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 he meets

WP:GNG and neither has anyone else in the 7 years it has been tagged for notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:40, 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) 06:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at most a promotional piece without verifiabilty. The 2001 Jesse H. Neal National Business Journalism Award was won by the Newport Communications Group, for a story on which Lockridge was a "contributing editor". The 2000 ASBPE award was a "bronze" regional editorial award for papers with circulation under 80,000 in the category "single news article", not a significant award. No other bass for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 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 merge to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Come with Us/Japan Only EP

Come with Us/Japan Only EP (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)

A barely notable subject unlikely to expand much further. I suggest this is redirected to merged into Come with Us. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as per above, while it might be a separate cd it should handled on the same article. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:32, 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. Nakon 01:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betta Daze

Betta Daze (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 have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the
    general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:59, 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 and redirect to 9X. Likely a better redirect to the 9X article than a list without details. Nakon 01:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Veeranwali

Veeranwali (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)

TV show with questionable notability. There was a ref there but sent me to a spam site (which thankfully it is a dead link now but I could tell by the domain it is) The only refs I could find on google were basically to Youtube. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Could redirect to
    List of programs broadcast by 9X. I coudn't establish its notability, although someone with better linguistic skills might do better. Pinging Chirag, who tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 6 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 04:07, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 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 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Barnhart

Steve Barnhart (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)

Businessman who does not meet

WP:ANYBIO
. A CFO of several small-mid size businesses:

Again, I don't think he meets any additional criteria found in

WP:ANYBIO and I don't see that he has done anything else that is noteworthy enough for inclusion. AHeneen (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 02:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kharkiv07Talk 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 6 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 04:06, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A good many of the articles listed here are now dead links. The ones that remain are general business news (company gets new CEO, company considers IPO). I don't find any substantial articles about him. LaMona (talk) 01:11, 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 redirect to

non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sunny March

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

No indication why the subject is important to be included as an encyclopedic content. Kavdiamanju (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page again. This deletion discussion was made while the page is being improved.Miller, Rebecca Augusta (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@
concern. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:43, 7 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 03:44, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, delete or redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 29 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. No comments after three weeks. Nakon 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Mihalca de Dolha and Petrova

Vasile Mihalca de Dolha and Petrova (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)

Both of the online sources are rather dubious, but more to the point, they don't mention the article subject at all. The third, and principal, source for the article is "Irina Pop de Negreşti Archive", presumably an unpublished collection of documents. Since this encyclopedia relies on published works, and since no published works appear to mention the subject, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 04:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 6 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 03:43, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 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 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Connally

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

This article does not meet the Wikipedia

general notability guidelines. I was unable to find any secondary sources; this person seems to be a blogger. The article looks like it was created by her partner and the content is self-promotional in nature. Rhombus (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on a side note ... is it possible that someone removed all comments from here. I know I saved a response on here, but can't find it in the page history. -- IamM1rv (talk) 11:37, 9 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 03:42, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any third-party coverage. Being a published journalist isn't enough for notability - you typically need e.g. reviews of your work, a major award (Pulitzer etc), substantial involvement in a major news event (not just covering a major story), published profiles/biographies in independent sources, or other substantial media coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:35, 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 01:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mihir Kumar Sharma

Mihir Kumar Sharma (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)

obvious vanity, edited by subject, fails

WP:FILMMAKER by a mile Darbhangadurbar (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 6 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 03:41, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 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 and redirect to

Fadl Shaker. Nakon 01:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Baada Aal Bal

Baada Aal Bal (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 that had its prod removed-has no refs or notability either (the tags were removed-will restore them) Wgolf (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If found non-notable, redirect to
    Fadel Shaker. Pinging Stormbay who tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 6 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 03:33, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 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 and redirect to

Fadl Shaker. Nakon 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sidi Rouhi

Sidi Rouhi (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 album-creator keeps on putting odd categories on these to make it look like they are people when they are not and removing the tags Wgolf (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a note-tons of these albums by this artist are currently up for prods/afds, one of them I moved back to a redirect that someone changed. Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero notability. If any sources can be found, redirect to
    Fadl Shaker. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:49, 8 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 03:33, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 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 and redirect to

Fadl Shaker. Nakon 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Walah Zaman

Walah Zaman (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 with no notability mentioned or refs either Wgolf (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment redirect to
    Fadel Shaker if found non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I was unable to find sources evidencing notability. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:15, 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, North America1000 03:30, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:46, 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 keep (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EUROTAI

AfDs for this article:
EUROTAI (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:GNG. Last AfD (2014) ended in no consensus - hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 6 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 03:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer Can I ask that as this has been tagged for notability for 7 years, that it is relisted again (if no clear consensus has emerged) rather than close as no consensus based mainly on poor participation? Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just copyedited and expanded the article with rel refs to an acceptable level. Pls recheck. --CeeGee 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn per above, Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 00:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lollis

Ryan Lollis (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)

PROD removed by article creator, who has had several days to offer an explanation and has not done so. There is no evidence that this passes GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:BASEBALL/N. Has never played a Major League game. Page at MLB here [32]. there is some news coverage, but it all appears to be trivial mentions in routine sports coverage. Nothing more than any other minor league player, and Baseball/N implies that most solely-minor league players fail notability. ― Padenton|✉   04:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 04:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough coverage to warrant a merge to the San Francisco minor leaguers page. Fails GNG. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing enough out there for this 28 year old who has played this and last year in Single and Double A. Fails
    WP:BASEBALL/N. Penale52 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge To San Francisco Giants minor league players. Alex (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is poor, no particular reason to preserve this content on an organizational player. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of enough notability to justify his own article under
    WP:NBASEBALL. Seattle (talk) 14:24, 24 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 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Howard

Justin Howard (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)

PROD removed by article creator, who has had several days to offer an explanation and has not done so. There is no evidence that this passes GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:BASEBALL/N. Has never played a Major League game. Page at MLB here [33]. there is some news coverage, but it all appears to be trivial mentions in routine sports coverage. Nothing more than any other minor league player, and Baseball/N implies that most solely-minor league players fail notability. ― Padenton|✉   04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 04:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough coverage to warrant a merge to the Pittsburgh minor leaguers page. Fails GNG. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. He's in Triple-A, so he has a realistic shot of reaching the majors. Alex (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of players make it to Triple-A without playing in the majors. Alex's logic would say we should create a blurb on every minor league page for every Triple-A player, 24 per team, 30 teams in all. That's nonsense. This player doesn't have sourcing to establish even the smallest bit of notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 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 01:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs from Sons of Anarchy

List of gangs from Sons of Anarchy (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)

Excessively detailed and unencyclopedic information. We're talking about fictional gangs from a TV show, with no sources to indicate that this is in any way important enough to pass the GNG. There is no doubt that some TV guide listing will mention these things--but what is needed for the topic to be encyclopedic is extensive, in-depth discussion of the topic in reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 03:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 03:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Fictional", "in universe", "original research", etc. The references don't meet WP standards also. Borock (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per
    WP:NOTPLOT, articles that consist of only plot summaries don't belong on Wikipedia. This is more applicable to Wikia. If we had some out-of-universe details to discuss, such as the influences for the creation of each gang, that would be different. Mostly what I see in reliable sources are comparisons that invoke the name of the show, such as "these guys are the real life version of Sons of Anarchy". Maybe someone can find better results than me. I gave up a bit earlier than I usually do when researching a topic on Google, as I was swamped with irrelevant hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 29 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. Snowing

Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Angela Devi

AfDs for this article:
Angela Devi (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

(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 03:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 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 and redirect to Kiting. Nakon 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiter

Kiter (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)

Dictionary deff. It does seem that this was started as a redirect 9 years ago. Not sure what happened. But either turn back into a redirect or delete would be my choices. Wgolf (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per
    Pishcal — ♣ 03:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the Redirect. Seems like the logical result to me. I guess deletion is alright, too. It's currently nothing more than a dictionary definition. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:04, 29 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 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna and Brittany McConnell

Brianna and Brittany McConnell (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)

Other then the fact that they were the baby stars of the film Junior they seem to have no notability going for them at all! Wgolf (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 03:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Pishcal — ♣ 03:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep' - Fact check, there were other notable works, not a lot ... I'm not sure where being notable for being, "...that baby twins..." rates in the scale of celebrities. [34] -- IamM1rv (talk) 15:04, 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. Discounting the sockpuppet disruption, there is a clear consensus to delete the article and start again from scratch. Nakon 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saygin Yalcin

Saygin Yalcin (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)

Notable, but the extensive promotional content will make it necessary to start over. The article is entirely a string of quotations.

If any experienced editor witll deal with this, I will withdraw the Afd. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blow it up and start over The amount of SPAs and possible socks in this AfD is highly suspicious as well as the article's creation by a SPA. This attempt to pressure DGG to withdraw the nomination is equally unsettling. This article was clearly created with the intent to promote the subject and should be deleted appropriately. I would also request that future versions of this article be required to pass through AfC to minimize the possibility of another promotional version cropping through. Additionally I ask that DGG not withdraw this AfD so that a fair consensus can be reached. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Winner 42 and
    WP:AFC if recreated.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Accounts blocked as
sockpuppets. Mike V • Talk 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Do you understand what AfD is supposed to be used for? Taking your nomination statement at face value, the appropriate course of action is to speedy the article, or blank 90% of it and ask for assistance rebuilding it on the talk page. Heck, you can re-write the article from scratch. This is not a technical subject. 24.193.38.8 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No answer, so I repeat: You, DGG, in your nomination statement said the subject is notable. The subject therefore ipso facto warrants an article. Your choices are to improve the article yourself, which you can certainly do because the subject is not technical, or to speedy the article if it is not redeemable. AfD is not called for.
By the way, why do you think the article is "a string of quotations"? Certainly doesn't appear to be. 24.193.38.8 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)— 24.193.38.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Probably the most notable person in the technology sector in the Middle East.
Which edits do you suggest? I would keep the article, maybe remove some wording to change tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Joneson Dulei (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC) — Jim Joneson Dulei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep unchaged I have just read through the article and also went through the references, which are impressive to be honest. I haven't got the feeling that this article is too promotional, but rather correctly mentioning awards and recognitions. They belong into articles, as long as they are backed up by reputable references, which they all are. The article has no significant string of quotations. Withdraw Afd notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haine Wilson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC) — Haine Wilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Hello DGG if you cannot add any value to this article, I believe we should close this discussion and remove the Afd notice. I suggest we give it another 3 days maximum until we remove the box, as all contributors here seem to agree that an Afd was uncalled for. added by Anna Kullianova (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC) — Anna Kullianova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep and stick to the article. Not users. Since when is wikipedia about how the users use their accounts linked to the quality of the content of the article? "Being suspicious" is purely off-topic and not related to why the article was placed to Afd. Going back to where we started: Either improve the article or withdraw the Afd, as subject is notable Alan Fillings (talk) 18:13, 24 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 article needs a lot of work doing but notability is there. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

K. Sridhar

K. Sridhar (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 a notable figure. Known for something "Twice Written" not sure what is it!! Sourced with facebook page. No secondary source. No contribution whatsoever. Educationtemple (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-per nom. He wrote something twice??? That was all I could think of! Wgolf (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep The citations arefully sufficient. I don't know why this was re-listed. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 28 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 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kamla Kant Pandey

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

Completely unsupported. Only one external link, that is also dead. Talk about some miracle technology of gene transfer that has revolutionized the science but he probably missed the Nobel prize for this discovery! Educationtemple (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation record is borderline for
    WP:PROF#C1. Fellowship in the Linnean society is, judging from their web site, not a significant honor. This could go either way for me but what turns me against it is the lack of sources in the article and my inability to find sources that cover the subject in nontrivial detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 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, North America1000 00:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing showing up to make him notable in NZ
    talk) 01:30, 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. Nakon 01:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard G. Wright

Richard G. Wright (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 he meets

WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence this film-maker is notable per
    WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 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, North America1000 00:34, 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. Cab be userfied on request for improvement.  Sandstein  08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized quaternion interpolation

Generalized quaternion interpolation (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)

Outwith my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish its notability. Neither has anyone else in the 7 years it has been tagged for notability; hopefully at AfD we can get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I've read it through twice but can’t make sense of it. There are ways to do what it’s trying to do, interpolate between more than two quaternions, but it doesn’t seem to get close to any of them, or anything that I can make sense of.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:47, 20 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 00:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found the (single) reference online: [35]. The whole thing looks borderline
    WP:NOTESSAY
    and complete gibberish. I first tried to understand what this article is about without the reference with my smattering of elemental mathematics, and frankly the most basic things are not correctly explained. Some basic and probably incorrect summary of the reference follows with as little jargon as possible:
The main problem is to measure a 3d rotation. We have multiple measurements with uncertainty attached to each of them and we want to take a guess of what the real value is. Notice this "value" is a three-parameter thing, for instance axis of rotation (2 degrees of freedom) and angle (1 DoF), so it can be represented by a unit vector of the quaternion space (if you forget about compositions of rotations, that's equivalent to a 3-sphere).
The "naive" way to look at the problem is to use some weighted average of the measurements (it is already not that easy if measurements have inconsistent error bars). But the thing is, that average is not easy to define, for instance the average of a set of unit vectors is not a unit vector, so you cannot find a straightforward geometrical definition for "average" here, because there are additional constraints on our objects (they must fit on a sphere). The article then proceeds to describe an algorithm that supposedly finds a good solution to the problem for a reason I do not quite see.
Even if the article was rewritten into a clear, concise and correct summary of that reference, I am still not seeing how this could possibly be considered notable. Tigraan (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find this: http://labvis.isr.uc.pt/robomat/papers/T1_2.pdf, which does something similar but without the weights.
talk) 11:06, 28 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom O'Neil - Speaker, Author & Entrepreneur

Tom O'Neil - Speaker, Author & Entrepreneur (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

WP:AUTOBIO, all but one reference written by subject ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 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, North America1000 00:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. The 1% Principle book also seems to lack enough independent reviews to qualify as an author. (This was by the author. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above - nothing notable at this stage
    talk) 01:20, 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. Nakon 01:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJay Brawner

DJay Brawner (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 to be a long and largely unverified CV of this social media oriented video producer. Article hasn't been improved in 2 years. I can't find anything apart from IMDb, press release and YouTube links online about this guy. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject has had some success as evidenced by news stories that mention he directed video X. However, none of the sources provided or found by me seem to cover the person in any depth. Thus, there is nothing to write an article with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Hollern

Kate Hollern (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

WP:POLITICIAN - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Meets notability criteria at
    WP:POLITICIAN as major local political figure. (1) She has led a local authority for the majority of the last 11 years and has garnered significant press attention as a consequence (e.g. 40 mentions on BBC News website). (2) Candidacy for national office does not confer notability BUT her status is also borne out by selection as Labour's candidate for that particular seat: Blackburn. She is virtually guaranteed to be a member of parliament in less than a month(!) Lilywhites74 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Going to remain a short article for a while, but subject is notable. Noteswork (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently fails all notability criteria including
    WP:POLITICIAN. I agree the subject will meet the criteria if elected to the HoC but has not got there yet. - Galloglass 15:56, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_April_21&oldid=1142626953"