Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 23 January	25 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by banned User:John Daker. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker City

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

Fails notability guidelines. Created by blocked user with most other edits by another blocked user. Gaff (talk) 23:06, 24 January 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. Deleted under

WP:G11. Please see closer comment for more detailed raionale. Shirt58 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yilin Zhong

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion because of its notability, neutrality and style. This article reads like an advertisement. It definitely seems to be authored by its subject. Christap (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has the nom considered speedy delete
G11? I would say that would be plausible with mentions of in-stock information (External links: "All sold out on Amazon:..."). No significant sources outside of social networks, other online 'pedias, Amazon and passing mentions in totally unrelated news (possibly someone else with a same name). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a very long CV. I've tagged it with G11, but if that gets declined then I say Delete the article per nom and User:Hisashiyarouin above; no demonstration of notability w/ reliable sources. INeverCry 06:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD closer comment: I have speedily deleted this article under
G11. As well, I could find no reliable sources to support the assertions made in the article, both in English and in (I admit my knowledge of the language is rudimentary at best, and more honestly pretty much non-existent) Chinese. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Superman: The Video Game

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

Not a single source to back up the claim that even once this video game might've been in development. A Google search brought up not a single valid website or article that would suggest that at one point it might've been considered being made. Soetermans. T / C 22:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a few Flash games and a small reference at the end of Lego Batman, but that's it, nothing even remotely resembling a reliable source. This GameSpot forum thread is possibly the origin of this article. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - consensus is that better sourcing has gotten it through. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

André-François Bourbeau

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

refbombing problems, citing Amazon and Barnes & Noble sales pages — which still aren't reliable sources — in addition to the publisher's page, and reduplicating some references up to ten times.) He certainly might qualify to keep a properly sourced article, but none of our inclusion rules confer any entitlement to have a Wikipedia article that cites no reliable source coverage at all. Delete unless major sourcing improvement can be located. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not based on the sources in an article, but the availability of sources -- and there are plenty of sources that confer notability:

T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now has multiple, reliable, third-party sources, some of which were suggested by T.C. Haliburton above. These sources all cite Bourbeau as a notable survival expert and include major newspapers (such as La Presse of Montreal and the Ottawa Sun), and national radio talk shows (Radio Canada - www.cbc.ca). Bourbeau was also interviewed by QMI Agency (Quebecor Media Inc), another major news outlet, as a noted survival expert. In addition, there is an academic journal article (Henderson and Potter) that cites and describes Bourbeau and his outdoor education program favorably.

These multiple, third party sources are now in the article and clearly establish this person's notability. Thank you very much. 72.80.191.75 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: terribly promotional and desperate to survive AFD by way of
bombardment, I still think it scrapes by AFD. Badly in need of cleanup, however. Vrac (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Upon a source review, the subject meets
WP:BASIC. Various matters regarding the article can be addressed by copy editing it. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as

blatant advertising §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Prof Thomas L Blair and Black Britain

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

WP:TNT. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Talk – Contributions 21:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete NOTESSAY and
WP:NOTADVOCATE either. MarnetteD|Talk 22:03, 24 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getachew Jigi Demeksa

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

I had this as a blp but someone deleted it-he seems to be possibly unotable. The only sources are unreliable also. Wgolf (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 21:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A member of the Ethiopian Federal Parliament is certainly notable per
WP:POLITICIAN. I have not found a solid source to confirm that he is still an MP, and I found something suggesting that he resigned, but notability is not temporary, and this provides enough confirmation to keep the article and look for better sources. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment A member of the Ethiopian Federal Parliament is notable, but where is the reliable source?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was trying to figure out-I had him as a blp but that was removed so yeah. Wgolf (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Member of the House of Peoples' Representatives.[1] Just Chilling (talk) 00:48, 28 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Nikolić (born 1988)

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

Fails

fully professional league. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Did not play fully professional = fails notability, per
WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails
WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:26, 29 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All India Youth Football Academy

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

Non-notable football (soccer) school. No indications of any significant coverage from any source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom & GiantSnowman - No indictation of notability, Fails
WP:ORG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -Well, only one source does appear to have some decent coverage of subject, -[2], all others -[3], [4] are having only passing/short mentions. It fails
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I note the coverage in
WP:ORG criteria. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There do not appear to be
WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - A single instance of significant coverage is insufficient to satisfy
WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Significant coverage in only one source doesn't establish notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:55, 31 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Smith (Irish musician)

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

Fails

WP:GNG, non-notable musician JMHamo (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are primamry as far as I can make out, yes there is one Hotpress interview (other than his blog) but he is a Hotpress writer, so its still primary and not independent. Murry1975 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to all original research and no secondary sources, as well as the info presented by Murray1975. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:15, 29 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vierck's law

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

Article was created in 2005; prodded and deleted in 2007; restored by request[5] January 12, 2015, but no improvements made. Was prodded again on January 16, but we cannot prod something twice. The article has always been, and remains,

unreferenced. I could find no sourcing at all about this supposed law. MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I agree that there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this. Insofar as this means anything, it's done better at
software decay. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - even if it were used, as Xcud asserts with no actual evidence, that's not enough. To be in Wikipedia it needs to have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. There's no sign of that. "It may become relevant again" is no argument at all for inclusion now. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can reliably show who Vierck is or was, and why anyone should take any notice of his law. In fact, Google shows very little notice being taken, so this could well be one of those things named after a work colleague as a windup. This would be supported by this being the author's only contrib other than a comment somewhere else. The requester for restoration also has made very few contribs. Peridon (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!! I've just read the request for undeletion again. "As a member of the Windows NT team I (Benjamin Vierck) mentioned the law myself in some subsequent interviews". A Benjamin Vierck was connected to Devfarm Software at whose AfD Xcud posted - his only area of editing other than

WP:OR (original research). Peridon (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - No sources, not even a Google mention other than WP itself. You'd think someone would have mentioned something about a law as far-reaching as this... In truth I wouldn't even think a speedy deletion under
WP:G3 was out of order, except I cannot actually prove that someone is laughing his ass off right now.... -- BenTels (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not sure if piling on will make a difference at this point, but I can't find any sources to support that this theory is at all notable (or exists for that matter).
Fuebaey (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No refs found. Its not really an article anyway just a definition more appropriate for Wiktionary. Also, I've got an MS in Computer Science and worked quite a bit doing research on the economics of software development and have never heard the term. And on top of all that, btw, it is clearly wrong! Lots of software in financial services, healthcare, military, etc. lasts much, much longer than 18 months. The only refs I could find to this was on a Microsoft blog from someone named (really) "Joe Software". My guess is this was an MS buzzword for a while but clearly not notable. Addendum: should have read all previous posts more carefully. Just saw the thing above by
wikipedia:notable --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 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. SpinningSpark 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Raia

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

Not

notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Line Magazine is her talking abbout herself. The Hype Magazine and Examiner are not reliable sources. The Brain Music is not independent. The others are just postings of her video or remixes. Link from DRV does not provide any depth of coverage about her. Nothing significant. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete G4~~ ~~- I've tagged it as such as~~ Delete she wasn't notable in October 2014 and ~~sure as hell~~ isn't notable now (BTW duffbeerforme if you spot recreated articles you can CSD it If it's not any different from the prev article. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 09:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was restored by DRV here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 6 WilyD 10:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops I wasn't aware of that, Thanks for notifying me :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is a source [6] from Perez Hilton mention distinct style and a second source here [7] stating a song in the major motion picture teenage mutant ninja turtles. It appears she passes 1, 5, 7, and 10 on WP:BAND. Wikipedia technically requires one of the conditions she more than passes. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has released zero albums so no pass on 5. Not her song so no pass on 10 (wouldn't pass even if it was). Hilton is not a reliable source so no pass on 7 ( and having a distinct style by itself does not pass either). You claim a pass on 1 but don't provide any depth of coverage from reliable sources. What sources do you think gets the pass? 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That !vote seems even more disingenuous when one reads the Hilton post properly. It does not mention distinct style. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 16 January 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) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
wp:band. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Passing mentions and non

reliable sources

.

He never said it was a distinct style. Him calling it a mix between "Miley Cyrus meets Lana Del Rey" does not make it a distinct style. A distinct style is not enough for WP:MUSIC.

I highly recommend you read your rational and review

wp:band. Start with 5. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Then count how many albums Raia has released. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyone can see those are not passing mentions especially the directlyrics source and Wp:band saying the following "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" she meets well over one. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see that directlyrics is not a reliable source. The others? Wetpaint is a "Social Publishing Platform", not a reliable source. Idolator, short lightweight blog post, hey check out this song, trivial coverage of Raia. LA Daily News "But to warm up the stage, pop singer Moxie Raia is also slated to perform on the 5 Towers stage at Universal City Walk starting at 7 p.m. The East Coast native is expected to perform her single “Buffalo Bill,” which has been remixed by legendary DJ Tiesto. Raia plans to release her debut album later this year". No depth of coverage. You say she meets well over one. Which ones? Have you counted the number of albums she has released yet? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note She doesn't have to meet

WP:PERSON, not instead of them. By the way, I think the first reference is valid, the one with the Top 10 list, because it presupposes that she's a person who would be of interest to readers, i.e., it presupposes some degree of note. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete looks like a case of
WP:TOOSOON. Notability so far consists of one song on a soundtrack, not even an album yet. Might have an article someday, but I don't think we're quite there yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Weak d~~Delete Of Valoem's set of four links above, the first two give only passing mentions in articles about Steve Aoki, and the fourth is a passing mention in a
WP:MUSIC openly excludes these interviews from consideration. (2) Unfortunately, Valoem's attempts to bring sources to our attention has backfired in my view. The conclusion I come to from the materials he's presented is that even a person who is actively trying to bring us appropriate sources can find only trivial mentions and interviews. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 29 January 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:; I've found a few more citations which use push her over the edge, [12], Rolling Stones, and [13] (questionable source), She does in fact pass 1, 6, and 10 putting her well over WP:N. I hope this can change your opinion to Weak Keep. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Valoem. These are all passing mentions in content that's about other things. What the words "featuring a commanding hook by Los Angeles singer-songwriter Moxie Raia", for example, are about is the track "Shell Shocked". They aren't "significant coverage" of Moxie Raia that "addresses [her] directly and in detail". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:; These three sources here [14] [15], [16] should be enough to push it over the guideline, specifically the first source, should it not? Plus if we included WP:BAND it does appear she passes. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already discounted all the mentions in articles about Steve Aoki. "Aoki teamed up with rising pop star Moxie Raia ..." isn't significant coverage of Moxie Raia. The Perez Hilton blurb is about her, but it says almost nothing about her, being really about the song. Still, it is evidence of being noticed. But it isn't new in this discussion: you mentioned it earlier. As for the Anthem interview, that's a good one—but it isn't new. It's one of the ones I already listed above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: If you asking for a few more sources which have significant coverage to push her over the edge these should do, [17], [18], [19]. Let me know what you think. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at your "new" sources. 1. Direct Lyrics. again. Nothing new there and it's still not a reliable source. It's a lyrics database. And it's just another publication "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" (see WP:MUSIC#1). 2,3 More of Moxie talking about herself. Nothing independent here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming she now passes number 6 hey? Let's look at that one. First part "Is an ensemble" ... She's not an ensemble so let's skip that bit. Next bit "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Which ensembles has she been a member of? None. No pass there. Another dodgy claim? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a reason for this page to be deleted. A lot of singers have wiki pages lack information, go out and find better sources and information instead of deleting it. Dman41689 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for notes on the pitfalls of making comparisons to other pages. The point here is that we can't find sources adequate to establish notability, as is required for subjects of Wikipedia articles. It isn't just a matter of whether the article has the information, it's a matter of whether it exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:22, 30 January 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. With all due respect, the keepers do not actually present any arguments. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Poswal

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

I find that newer editors tend to remove PRODs, so I'm nominating this article for deletion. It is a poorly written article. In particular, I'm not even sure if this person is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Being poorly written is not a criteria for deletion, it is a criteria for improvement. What's needed here is clarification about the notability claims. The article does claim notability in the form of awards and accolades, but does not explain the significance of the awards. If more background on those awards is not forthcoming, then I would change this to delete on the grounds of notability. But right now it really should be Keep & improve. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 14:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy this is a new article by a first time editor. Before considering deletion it should be determined if it can meet WP standards. The lists need to be deleted, and all statements of fact need references. Unrelated personal information (who performed the wedding and the studies of his son) should be removed. After that is done, the article could be submitted to
Articles for Creation for review. LaMona (talk) 00:31, 3 January 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) 00:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - The article's not perfect but we're an encyclopedia and we improve on articles everyday so can't see why we can't improve this?. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should NOT be deleted because they are poorly written. They can always be rewritten. But hey, want to delete because he MIGHT not be notable? Doesn't make sense to me. Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:45, 11 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 12:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a test version is at
average professor test: the "fuse1 technique for hair transplant"(sic) seems to be the name of his practice, rather than a technique in use (http://fusehair.com/). BakerStMD T|C 01:59, 18 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Economics

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

Article was deleted by an earlier AfD, but restored after review. Per that review, I am re-listing this at AfD. This is purely an administrative action; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent

reliable sources

.

References
Freeman, Mike (1999-09-29). "Computer Economics wants to hear your cyber beefs". Newspapers.com. The text of the article is also available here^WebCite The article begins: Few firms go out of their way to hear people complain, but Computer Economics Inc. of Carlsbad is doing just that. In the name of research, the company hopes to become a shoulder to cry on for disgruntled cyber shoppers. The 20-year-old firm recently established a toll-free telephone hotline so miffed cyber shoppers can vent about bogus billing, effusive e-mail or poor product delivery in purchases made over the Internet. ... Computer Economics' motivation isn't altruistic. As a consulting company, it sells research services to information-technology firms, including Web-based retailers. By setting up the hotline, Computer Economics hopes to set itself apart from competitors. "We were looking for a way to do something different that other research firms weren't doing," Erbschloe said. The company, with its 26 employees, has been collecting customer satisfaction information through focus groups and surveys, but it wanted to take a more gritty approach. Thus this masochistic marketing scheme.
Delio, Michelle (2002-01-14). "Find the Cost of (Virus) Freedom". Wired. Archived from the original on 2014-12-25. Retrieved 2014-12-25. The article notes: To estimate the damage, media organizations nearly always turn to Computer Economics -- a California-based research firm whose primary business is to advise companies on technology investment and marketing strategies. But many industry experts wonder how the company arrives at these seemingly exorbitant figures. Some antivirus firms and industry watchdogs said that Computer Economics is less than forthcoming about the specific data, sources and processes that it uses to tabulate the economic impact of viruses. Some experts say that lack of documentation renders any virus-damage statistics from the company all but useless. ... Rosenberger lists Computer Economics in his site's "Hysteria Roll Call" list, a who's who of people feeding the flames of computer virus hysteria. Based on http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/05/67428, other articles by Michelle Delio had issues with their being unable to confirm quotes from anonymous sources. But this article does not cite anonymous sources, and it was not retracted by Wired, so I consider it reliable.
Leyden, John (2002-01-16). "Lies, damned lies and anti-virus statistics". The Register. Archived from the original on 2008-07-26. Retrieved 2014-12-25. The article begins: Computer Economics has published its assessment of the damage worldwide caused by malicious code attacks in 2001 - the figure comes in at a whopping $13.2 billion. This is 23 per cent less than 2000, the year of the Love Bug, when damages from viruses were estimated at $17.1bn. In 1999 the cost to the world was $12.1 billion in 1999, Computer Economics says. The research firm has totted up the damage wreaked by viruses each year since 1995, But the results are controversial. Critics in the antivirus industry dismiss Computer Economics assessment of the damage caused by the combined effects of Nimda ($635 million), Code Red variants ($2.62 billion), SirCam ($1.15 billion) et al last year as a "guesstimate".

There is sufficient coverage in

reliable sources to allow Computer Economics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 1 January 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) 01:53, 8 January 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging
WP:DRV participants User:Fscavo, User:postdlf, User:LaMona, and User:Hobit. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I have a COI on this article and should not weigh in on the decision. However, I am willing to suggest a rewrite of the article on the article's talk page, incorporating the sources listed above, if that would be helpful. Fscavo (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very uncomfortable with that as you are the president of the company. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fscavo is welcome, as would be any COI editor, to submit rewritten passages at the Talk page of the article, and to submit "edit requests" about incorporating such info into the article. By the end of the DRV, Fscavo seems well enough aware of COI policy (e.g. see posting at 26 December). So this is helpful, not a problem. --do ncr am 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the DRV, the sources meet WP:N. They are actually fairly good but are mainly about the work-product of CE not the company itself. weak keep. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the articles exist, I do not see sufficient content in them about the company to create a viable article. All of the articles here are mainly discussions about the topics the company reports on, not the company itself, and not even much about the company's products, except to say that people use them. Also note that 1) the articles listed here are not what were on the original article put up for AfD 2) none are more recent than 2002. Thirteen-year-old articles for a current corporation, given how quickly business changes, are not suitable sources. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The DRV discussion contains sources in addition to the above-posted set of sources. As noted in the DRV by someone, the pre-2002 sources are still valid; notability is not temporary. Importantly, though, the firm remains in the news, e.g. this September 2014 article in CFO (magazine), which I find from the firm's "in the news" webpage of press coverage. The article is not about the firm, per se, but rather is about a product of the firm, which is a survey of IT professionals done by the firm (and available for sale). It's marketing, yes, but the survey itself is a product of the firm. Other coverage through the years is also about products, if you consider its product to be research/information about the IT industry. The firm is taken to be a reliable-enough source for many trade publications and is occasionally quoted in wider media (e.g. this 2008 New York Times article contains a quip from the CEO (which I also found from the firm's "in the news" page). Since the firm is cited in news articles, having a Wikipedia article on it provides a reference service to readers. To Fscavo, if you are a PR manager or whatever, it would behoove you to facilitate some future coverage more directly about the firm itself in a reliable-for-Wikipedia source. I have no prior connection to the topic, just came across this at AFD. I believe that, overall, coverage is sufficient and keeping is better. --do ncr am 18:37, 23 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Unfortunately, what you list here as references sounds exactly what is excluded in
corporate notability: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" and "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". LaMona (talk) 18:12, 24 January 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 consensus has been reached after 3 relistings, and 1 month at AfD. There is one !vote for keep and one !vote for delete. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Society of Leadership and Success

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

I could not find sufficient

reliable sources to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. I began a revamp of the current article (which is mostly based on primary sources) and found numerous times when the organization was mentioned -- so the NSLS exists -- and I will put links to what I found in a comment below -- but I could not find one serious write-up of what the organization is really about, how it functions, how many members it has, what its impact is, how selective it is in offering membership to college students. My sense is that it is a for-profit organization along the lines of 'Who's Who', college students must pay $85 to be admitted (there are additional fees later), more of a vanity honor than a real academic honor such as Phi Beta Kappa, which is built along the lines of a business-oriented motivational speaker course, such that members are urged to bring speakers to campus (quality varies widely) which did generate a few mentions in the press. What Wikipedia needs are a few in-depth non-biased reviews which really examine what this organization is about. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. The organization is mentioned in the following sources suggesting that it does promote speakers; in one instance, it gave out a $1000 scholarship (but that is the only example of it giving a scholarship that I came across, so my sense is that its overall scholarship donations are not extensive by any stretch). There are mentions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, $1000 scholarship here, here,software job here, here. I did an unfiltered search, just by the organization name itself, and did not find the in-depth write-ups that Wikipedia needs. If somebody can point me to such write-ups, I am willing to consider aborting my nomination.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling the name + "scam" reveals some interesting discussions.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:28, 3 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 6 January 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) 06:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep guys (and gals, ha ;) ) , WP:Notability is just two independent mainstream media references. Huffpost + NBC is enough to establish notability, and if there's immense further blog controversy that the organization is "a scam" then that is only a further ironic sign of the breadth and reach and significance of the group. The WP:Notability metric is just two media references, and I think Southeast Sun Online Edition now makes it three independent media write-ups. This article needs a subsection "Controversies" dealing with the alleged scamlike aspects of some of its activities, but in any case, notability of this group doesn't seem to be in question. -Augustabreeze (talk) 10:13, 13 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 24 January 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 clear consensus to delete; relisting this much is futile. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Groarke

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

No indication of notability. News coverage appears to be just what any priest might receive in local newspapers. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Unsure if Archdeacon's are notable enough or not. I note every other Archdeacon of Dudley has an article. Perhaps someone should consult WikiProject Anglicanism. Regional coverage comes up but I didn't have much time to look. JT_dale^Talk~ 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, of local interest only, fails
WP:BIO. Archdeacon is not a claim to notability; in Anglicanism an archdeacon is a senior clergy position, above that of priest and below a bishop. Article has been up for almost a month. --Bejnar (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose deletion As the author of the entry I believe it is not contentious in any way. I am the verger of one the churches in the area covered by the archdeacon and the press release was issued by the Diocesan Press Officer to people like me for use in parish magazines etc. The press release is in the public domain. Like JT I note every other Archdeacon of Dudley has an article many have gone on to other senior Anglican positions. I have seen no other current material about her and in the light of the current interest in potential women bishops in the Church of England I believe the entry should remain. I have met her to talk to. I am more than happy for the entry to be amended in anyway to correct any factual inaccuracies. Every Archdeacon of Dudley since 1924 has been recoded with an entry and every Archdeacon of Worcester since the 13th century. DonBarton (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BIO may have been written? --Bejnar (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 21:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We have articles on several other archdeacons, both in this and most other dioceses in England. I think the diocese of Worcester only has two archdeacons, so that this is not merely a matter of local interest. This is not a post held by a mere priest; if it were, I would be voting ther other way. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are discussing this article, not others. We are discussing her notability under Wikipedia guidelines, not the status in the church of archdeacons. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I would suggest that by her appointment as an Anglican archdeacon, she has become notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

pointy behaviour.) for the inherently notability of Anglican archdeacons was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest) (2012); however, as a test case it failed because as one editor put it None of his roles or titles make him inherently notable, but the coverage and sourcing just puts him over the line. --Bejnar (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While a sweep of British news did not reveal anything, there were sources elsewhere. Specifically, a news story about her, also another one here, and here, a mention here and a mention here, a mention here. While she may not be on the level of a pope or saint or hot clergyperson in a juicy scandal, I think she squeezes past the wiki notability test.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, news stories about her appointment in the local newspapers, and mere mentions. --Bejnar (talk) 23:19, 2 January 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Clearly sorta borderline, but there are a considerable number of mentions and some direct coverage in local sources. Would probably just qualify as "notable". NickCT (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentins and local. --Bejnar (talk) 20:16, 10 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article should follow the well-done format of her predecessor in the post. Pax 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you suggesting "keep"? --Bejnar (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basis that keeps her predecessors' articles in the project. (I would not be adverse to a single large table article with all of these names redirecting to it.) Pax 09:15, 19 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 16:02, 24 January 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 consensus has been reached, even after 3 relistings and 1 month at AfD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Manitoba

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

Sentence about regional sports union which does not meet

WP:NRU. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Sport-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of rugby union-related deletion discussions. -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is one of the provincial rugby union organisations in Canada, which fall immediately below the national one, Rugby Canada. Therefore it is one of the most notable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. Note that nominator did not list this nomination on rugby union pages.[reply]

Can you provide a policy based argument that does not sound like

WP:INHERITED?- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I've no idea what "inherited" refers to here, and have never heard of it before in this context. I'm not a newbie on Wikipedia, but would appreciate the use of plain English here, and shouldn't have to go to some obscure corner of Wikipedia to find such terms out. [Edit to add - Went to the link in question, and still do not see the relevance here.]

My point about being the next tier beneath the national organisation sticks. I suspect your issue here is that you are not involved with rugby at all, at any level, and probably are not close to anyone who is either, so you have assumed that this is somehow not notable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC) p.s. All of these Canadian rugby articles should have been listed together.[reply]

Comment -

WP:INHERITED was first introduced into WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions in 2007. See here. It's been addressed in AfDs over 800 times See here. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The premise of

WP:AFDEQ may be helpful to understand the AFD process.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

They don't derive notability from their parent organisation, they derive notability from being second tier.

Regarding jargon, new terms seem to be cooked up every day on Wikipedia, which are not known to the majority of regular users. It is impossible for anyone to keep track of it all.-MacRùsgail (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in there lies the rub,

WP:PAGEDECIDE.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 1 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rugby Canada#Provincial Rugby Unions in Canada.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:35, 5 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:31, 13 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 16:00, 24 January 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. The discussion is leaning toward a delete result. However, the respective "delete or merge" and (to a lesser extent) "keep for now" !votes and their rationales relative to Wikipedia guidelines essentially prevents this discussion from being closed as such. Due to limited participation after three relistings, closing with

no prejudice against speedy renomination. Perhaps a merge would be a decent compromise. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

JanusVR

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

I am unable to find any sources that cover the subject beyond mere mentions. Fails

WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, for now. At first I thought I was inconclusive.. I googled "Janus Vr Browser" and a good amount of links came up specifically related to it. But I do agree there is little subject-covering and most is mentions the browser. If this is deleted I won't complain but it'd be good to at least try to expand it.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 21:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working on expanding this entry.--NXT Aussie (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 1 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:16, 5 January 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) 01:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to
WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:55, 14 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 15:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this (NAC closure) as no consensus, but the nom wanted me to reopen this. Natg 19 (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad call

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

Just a

dictionary entry. I can't imagine any reliable sources discussing this concept in depth. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. ~~Dez Bryant and the rest of the Cowboys will have to look elsewhere.~~ Rename List of controversial sports calls and non-calls, but get rid of the organist and the PBL example. Note that "controversial" expands the definition and allows the inclusion of Dez's catch/non-catch, the Fail Mary, Super Bowl XL blunders (boo, hiss). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but might be useful over at Wiktionary. - Gaming4JC (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. It does not even have the definition right. The article claims it is a call the fan does not agree with but it might actually be a bad call. HalfGig talk 03:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Maybe there is some room for expansion (etymology, famous controversial bad calls)? I tried to add some references in and expand it, but sports isn't my area, so it's up to you guys. Bananasoldier (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Imagine? Per
WP:BEFORE, the nominator is supposed to look. Making assumptions or using guesswork is how bad calls are made. When I look, I find no shortage of sources discussing the concept in the context of baseball and tennis. For example, see Major League Umpires' Performance; Call 'Em Right; Scorecasting; Nobody's Perfect. The latter is an entire book about how a bad call cost a perfect game. Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- But you'd have to explain how "bad call" is somehow the right term for the general topic of "poor decision by referee that affects the outcome of a game" or something like that. The links you've given are about refereeing and decisions and whatnot--but what is needed, of course, is discussion of the very concept of "bad call". Drmies (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - These sources are just fine and there's plenty more out there. I was a certified softball umpire and there's formal training and tests for such. The making of calls is obviously a key topic in this. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google News search at the top of the AFD. Ample news coverage of bad calls in sports. It is notable because it gets coverage. We also have a number of articles that mention notable examples of bad calls. I added some to the article. You can search through [20] for other examples as well. Dream Focus 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, examples of bad calls are not "in-depth discussions of the concept of poor decision by referee or umpire". Drmies (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Bad Call" has expanded usage beyond specifically sports. The usage within sports has expanded to all sports. Direct translations between languages do not a suggest foreign equivalent meaning the term is specifically English. Misapplication of Wikipedia rules and deletion of this term would be a bad call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplifyonly (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. For AfD the article doesn't need to discuss the topic "in depth" (ie. a long article). It needs to be a stub (a few sentences), and it needs to offer more than Wiktionary. And be sourced. This is already accomplished, and I can easily imagine ways to expand the article by discussing some famous bad calls which have had an impact on the sporting world. --
C 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
dictionary entry, but I agree on there being at least a redirect to another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerospeed (talk • contribs
)

Keep. The article could use work, but the subject of bad calls in sports is definitely covered enough to be able to write an article about. Here are some articles about bad calls in baseball: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
WP:IAR and fix it. We're still building an encyclopedia, after all these years. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I added a bunch to the article (which someone tried to delete). User:Egsan Bacon demonstrated there is a lot more material that can be added, so the article can clearly be expanded upon. Trackinfo (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of those "material" you added is called a "bad call" by reliable sources, so it's just a
wp:original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Marginally correct only due to the tense of the word. The originating source came from an article entitled the "10 Worst Calls" . . . I hope you don't suggest that because these are the baddest of the bad in the opinion published by a reliable source, that they are not themselves "bad" Trackinfo (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DICDEF of course. It's just a phrase that in itself has no in-depth discussion because it can't, and the additional mandatory list of "notable examples" is just there to pad the bibliography. Actually, it's worse--the list is not a list of examples of usage of "bad call", it's just a list of controversial decisions by referees. And dinners with mom, apparently. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be and is discussed in depth. For example, see The influence of crowd noise and experience upon refereeing decisions in football
‘Making a bad call’ is the single most important stressor amongst officials in volleyball (Stewart & Ellery, 1998), a finding echoed in basketball (Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993), and football (Taylor, Daniel, Leith, & Burke, 1990). Given that making a bad call and crowd noise will raise levels of stress in the noise group referees in a similar way to that of the match referee (sources of stress felt to be difficult to control), the coping strategy is likely to be one of avoidance. As the crowd is likely to make it clear if they feel a decision was ‘wrong’, avoidance could be interpreted as simply not making the unpopular decision to penalise the home team when assessing less clear or contentious challenges. Whenever a home player commits a foul, the crowd’s reaction is capable of activating the potent stressor of making a bad call, thus increasing the level of uncertainty or indecision among referees, resulting in no decision (avoidance) and fewer fouls against the home team.
— Psychology of Sport and Exercise

And, of course, we see this effect in Wikipedia too, as partisan noise may cause admins to ignore evidence, facts, logic and policy to instead appease the crowd. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article and the discussion here is unfocussed, covering in inadequate detail a wide range of semi-related topics. The psychology of officiating, impact of home field advantage on officiation are better served on their own page, video replay and umpire abuse are all full enough topics that they can be discussed independently; and the blanket heading "bad call" does not do justice to any of these topics (e.g. home field advantage or square-ups may influence decision making, but doesn't necessarily make the calls relating to them "bad"). Finally, the last thing Wikipedia needs is a location where a grab-bag of controversial or incorrect calls can be described, because this will be difficult to manage and it will have dubious encyclopedic value to have all such calls from a wide range of sports compiled in one location. Aspirex (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary (specifically wikt:call because they don't have a "bad call" article); alternatively, transwiki (closer's discretion). It's a dictionary definition but also a plausible search term. If someone types "bad call" into the search box of their favourite online encyclopaedia, then we ought to be able to do better than a redlink that invites them to write an article in that space. Of course, if one of the editors above somehow turns up the sources to write "bad call" as a proper encyclopaedia article, then the soft redirect can be reversed, but the soft redirect should go in in the meantime.—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking as if adequate sources haven't already been found, which is ignoring the many examples presented above. For avoidance of doubt, here's yet another one. Andrew D. (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Green and Daniels analyzed ball and strike calls made by Major League Baseball umpires for more than a million pitches between 2009 and 2011. In their study, which recently won second place at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, they show that an umpire's strike zone shrinks in counts when the batter already has two strikes (and therefore a third strike would result in an out) and expands when the batter has three balls (with a fourth ball then resulting in a walk). "Oftentimes, the umpires face a choice between a call that would be really pivotal and a call that would be relatively inconsequential," says Green. "And what we find is that they err on the side of the inconsequential call unless they're absolutely certain that the pivotal call is the right one."
— Stanford Business School

Personally, I think that's an article about decision-making heuristics in the context of baseball. I don't think it's really an article about the concept of a "bad call".—S Marshall T/C 13:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an articles about
editing policy, we should not be deleting early drafts when there's such potential. Andrew D. (talk) 19:35, 23 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per
WP:NOTDIC. There is also no sourcing for this article ("articles that use the term" is not the same as "articles about the term"). — BenTels (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Article needs polish (and much elimination of superfluous commas), but the topic is viable. Pax 21:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but pluralized as a topic..."bad calls"? If anyone has noticed, this page is one of the top new Wikipedia pages. As a topic bad calls is not subject to WP;dicdef deletion. The suggestion to move this term to a dictionary is not well thought out. No other reliable dictionaries have this term. Each word is widely used and the combination means something very specific.Both the term or topic exist, and are discussed and is used by reliable sources. Game officials, those most stressed after a bad call, will likely be contributors and might justly blame overly intricate game rules that make officiating more, rather than less stressful. On a personal note, Wikipedia policies, standards, guidelines, conventions, codes, practices and rules come down to the most basic reality; You can't follow all the rules, all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_Can%27t_Follow_All_The_Rules,_All_The_Time And Wikipedia policy; Ignore all rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. see "confusion"

Bad Call(s) should be a humble addition to an already incredible achievement, Wikipedia. [[user: ]] (talk) (UTC) — Preceding simplifyonly comment added by Simplifyonly

Comment I believe everyone voting for keep is getting blinded by the potential content, and overlooking the fact that it will be impossible to produce a cohesive article of this name. We've reached the point where almost every topic relevant to umpiring/refereeing – from umpire abuse, to video reviews, to the easy of policeability, to the stress on umpires – could be described separately for every major sport in the world, and somehow that's meant to go into a single article. All of these topics, chronicled properly, can be stand-alone; and for each sport, it can also be stand alone. The much-described content about policing the baseball strike zone would surely be more appropriate in
baseball umpire than in a centralized article about bad calls. I still believe deletion is the most sensible course of action here. Aspirex (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Another comment I think it's important to point out that the events of the past day call the suitability of the title of this article into serious question, even if the final decision is to keep. The reason being that "bad call" (or "worst call") has been used almost entirely to refer to the Seattle Seahawks' final play call in Super Bowl XLIX, and not to an umpiring/refereeing decision. Aspirex (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nothing prevents further discussion on talk page around merging. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden

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

Undue weight for separate article. Any notable content can be added to the subsection at Religion in Sweden. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough information for an article. All it gives is the dates when the church was founded in Sweden and when its HQ moved to Denmark. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitfoxxe: Please review the updated article and its sources. is a 21:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough information to warrant separate article any inportant information that comes up on this subject could be added to main Jehovah's Witnesses article as a subsection. Daniel298289 (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep They're famous and have been around for a while. The article being short has nothing to do with it. Articles for deletion is not a venue for quality article improvement. J 1982 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Wikipedia articles about the broader subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. However country-specific articles are generally not warranted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should not country-wise be welcome? J 1982 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on if there is enough

secondary sources relevant to the specific country. What content exists beyond what could be placed in the relevant section at Religion in Sweden?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, this is not the right venue for improvement. J 1982 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was largely rhetorical. It is considerably unlikely that there is sufficient information in reliable secondary sources to warrant a distinct article. But if you have specific sources in mind, feel free to start a section at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When something is "notable" to stand on its own, the length of the article doesn't matter. J 1982 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not established that the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden is notable, and nor is it the case that everything notable enough for a section in an article warrants its own article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SOU clarifies that the JW have influenced public debate about pacifism and alternative military service in Sweden, at least since the 1950s. The same source clarifies that laws have been modified to deal with JW. The SOU cites previous SOUs and leading newspapers, as well as newspapers representing e.g. Communists. So there is a wealth of reliable sources to work with, all focused on Swedish JW and pacificism.

No doubt similar statements can be made about child and health care. is a 21:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As previously indicated, there were cases in Sweden about this issue in the 1960s (actually starting around 1958). However, this can be adequately covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments and briefly mentioned at Religion in Sweden. It doesn't necessitate a separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if the current article is short, there's sufficient material to justify an article on its own regarding Sweden. Tomas e (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on what kind of information is available that is specific to Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden that cannot be adequately covered at Religion in Sweden?--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that every Christian denomination active in Sweden should only be described in a general "Religion in Sweden" article if they are of sufficient size for a separate article, which Jehovas Witnesses obviously is. Material that is specific rather than comparative tends to get lost from view to readers who are looking for specifics. Material for expansion includes history, and handling by Swedish social welfare authorities between their believes and medical treatments. Tomas e (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Tomas e! I've now begun expansion. J 1982 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Jehovah's Witnesses is covered at History of Jehovah's Witnesses and other articles. Social issues such as conscientious objection regarding Jehovah's Witnesses are covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and other articles. Their views about medical treatment are covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. It is not necessary to have a separate article about these issues for individual countries. A separate article is only warranted if there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about Jehovah's Witnesses in that country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you imagine constitutes 'sufficient size'. JWs in Sweden represent less than 0.25% of the population of Sweden, and less than 0.3% of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Religion in Sweden - Seems better to Merge than to Keep or Delete imho. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that there are three language interwiki links for the article. Two were also written by User:J 1982, the creator of this article, in Swedish and 'Simple English'. The 'Simple English' version is identical to the English version. The third was written by another editor, in Polish, and is based entirely on primary sources, which fails the criteria for notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are hundreds of hits for "Jehovas vittnen" in the catalogue of the Swedish National Library. While many of these are clearly just pro-JW apologetics or anti-JW polemics from other Christian groups, and some concern JW in general or outside Sweden, I did easily find one publication that undoubtedly is a reliable source, a Lund University dissertation from 2007: Pernilla Liedgren Dobronravoff, Att bli, att vara och att ha varit : om ingångar i och utgångar ur Jehovas vittnen i Sverige. I'd suggest that the proper way to go about researching an article such as this one would be to look at a book such as the one mentioned (not least to study her introduction and bibliography to see what authors and publications she mentions or cites) or at appropriate annual academic bibliographies covering religion in Sweden. --Hegvald (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It appears that there are about as many Witnesses as Jews in Sweden (possibly more). However would any one suggest that we should delete History of the Jews in Sweden? I have strong disgreements with the Watchtower theology, but it exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is a major religious and ethnic classification. Jehovah's Witnesses is a minor Christian denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What matters for notability is if there are sources dealing with a subject. You seem to have based this nomination purely on the assumption that no sources could possibly exist on a subject you personally regard as being of little interest. --Hegvald (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Jehovah's Witnesses is very well represented on Wikipedia. However, that does not mean that Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden is a notable subject. The one suitable source you've indicated doesn't automatically justify a separate article. Ordinarily, the correct process would be to add material to the relevant section at Religion in Sweden, and to create a spin-off article only after it has been established that there is sufficient material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still agree with delete, but it has nothing to do with the number of Witnesses or their status as a major religion or minor denomination. There is Scientology in Germany although Scientology is much more minor, but the topic has been considered important enough to be covered in depth in secondary sources.Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite correct that the number of members is not the sole determining factor. Notability of a religion in a particular country is determined based on reliable sources about that religion that are specific to that country. Sources from a particular country that provide general information about a particular religion whose members happen to be in that country does not generally make their presence in that country notable (exceptions would include if the religion exists only or primarily in that country or is headquartered in that country).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For such a major organization, we should not even need to think of notability even country-wise. J 1982 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely incorrect. Based on their own official statistics, Jehovah's Witnesses constitute less than a quarter of 1% of Sweden's population.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's major because of it's fame, not its number of members. J 1982 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Jehovah's Witnesses as a broader subject has not been disputed, and there is already significant coverage of subjects relating to Jehovah's Witnesses in various Wikipedia articles. Jehovah's Witnesses are not especially 'famous' in Sweden.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jehovah's Witnesses are not especially prominent or controversial in Sweden. There were some court cases in the 1960s regarding conscientious objection, and this could be adequately handled in a brief paragaraph at Religion in Sweden, with a link to the broader issues of Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons noted by Tomas e (talk · contribs). Religion in Sweden would should not be a dumping ground, but rather a coherent article. There are plenty of reliable sources for a niche article on Jehovah's Witnesses. is a 07:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient notable information about Jehovah's Witnesses that is specific to Sweden. The subject of Jehovah's Witnesses is itself already given broad coverage across several articles. It is not necessary to report general information about the denomination in an article related to the religion in Sweden.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating yourself and please start reading others' replies, so that consensus can be established. Hedvig (talk · contribs) already discussed reliable academic sources, so your statement is not only false but was already demonstrated to be false. Additional reliable sources (professional journalism) can be found by searching for "Jehovas vittnen" at leading newspapers and broadcasters. is a 09:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already read the other comments. They have not established that Jehovah's Witnesses are especially notable in Sweden. Those sources establish that JWs are notable generally, and this is well reflected by Wikipedia's coverage of the subject in several articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. The title of the Lund University doctoral dissertation specifies that it discusses Jehova's Witnesses in Sweden. is a 10:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A book written in Sweden about Jehovah's Witnesses is obviously going to involve the author's observations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden, but it does not establish that JWs in Sweden are particularly notable compared to JWs anywhere else. It only establishes that JWs are notable, and there are some of them in Sweden. It does not automatically warrant a country-specific article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that Swedish (e.g. Lund University) dissertations only discuss topics in Sweden? You are wrong also on this belief. is a 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to explain why that question further demonstrates that the article you cited is not evidence that JWs in Sweden is an especially notable subject?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone in Sweden writes about cats, does that warrant a Wikipedia article about cats in Sweden?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the title, which discusses JW in Sweden. It is a Lund University dissertation: "a Lund University dissertation from 2007: Pernilla Liedgren Dobronravoff, Att bli, att vara och att ha varit : om ingångar i och utgångar ur Jehovas vittnen i Sverige" is a 11:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Repeating the title over and over again doesn't establish anything about the content. It doesn't demonstrate that JWs in Sweden are any different to JWs anywhere else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me translate the end of the title: "the Jehova's Witnesses in Sweden". So there is an academic monograph on JW in Sweden, besides the high quality reliable news sources on JW in Sweden, which have already been cited. The notability has been demonstrated. is a 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of JWs in Sweden is not disputed, and it is unremarkable that someone in Sweden has written about them. If sources say the same things about JWs in Sweden that are said about them everywhere else, it does not establish notability of JWs in Sweden. Notable details about JWs in Sweden such as the number or first appearance can be summarised in a brief section at Religion in Sweden.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how your repeated opinions are related to policy or guidelines, please. I have never heard of your criteria. is a 15:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already indicated what would demonstrate the subject of JWs in Sweden to be notable. If sources don't say things that are specific to JWs in Sweden, the article would be simply be a content fork of other JW articles, with only a few details specific to the country, and those details could be adequately covered at Religion in Sweden. In that case, a separate article for a minor denomination would constitute undue weight. Since you keep asserting the document, Att bli, att vara och att ha varit : om ingångar i och utgångar ur Jehovas vittnen i Sverige, as a suitable source... what does it say about JWs in Sweden that would warrant a specific article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your tests do not seem to based on policies or guidelines. You would be free to make up rules and even change them after stating them at your own website just as I would be at any of my own, but I don't believe that you are free to impose personal criteria without gaining community consensus first. is a 16:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you are wrong. The correct procedure is to add content to the relevant section at Religion in Sweden, and if it becomes evident that there is sufficient content, only then create a spin-off article. It is not the correct procedure to say oh, someone made a stub, so let's assume sources justify it, without actually looking any further at what the sources actually say.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have indicated that you've trolled my User page, and it's evident you've also been trolling my other edits, so your objections here appear disingenuous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your "trolling" insults and accusations of bad faith. I have improved articles that you have nominated for deletion or edit-warred, coincidently on new religious movements like Jehovah's Witnesses, when they interest me. is a 21:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not before you withdraw your own entirely unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith.[32]--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On further inspection, there appear to be several 'group' in Sweden articles for groups with trivial membership in the country, with almost no content or content based on no sources. For example:

Buddhism in Sweden - minor membership in Sweden, basic information, could be refactored into section comprising a single paragraph at main article;
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Sweden - trivial membership, no sources, could be merged to Free churches at main article;
Evangelical Reformed Church in Sweden - only two congregations nationwide, could be merged into Free churches section at main article;
Hinduism in Sweden - minor membership in Sweden, could be refactored into a section comprising a single paragraph at main article;
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Sweden
- single paragraph containing basic details, could be moved to a subsection at main article as is;
Uniting Church in Sweden - single paragraph, could be merged into Free churches section of main article;

Those article should also probably be merged to Religion in Sweden if they cannot be substantiated as notable standalone topics.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging a denomination into the religion-article for the country is like merging a politician into the politics-article. Such articles are best when they aren't dumps. Wikipedia is in first case built upon describing in different articles. J 1982 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The groups indicated above are very minor in Sweden. Of those, the Christian denominations are broadly represented in the Free churches section, and it isn't necessary to assign them undue weight. It would be entirely appropriate to have a brief section for Hinduism and Buddhism, with a brief paragraph for each, for the very small representation of both that is present in Sweden, and is entirely consistent with the existing sections on Christianity, Islam and Judaism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources. There are a number of narratives about Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden that are reliably sourcable but not currently in the article:
- Carl Olof Jonsson was a Swedish Jehovah's Witness of some importance. He was tasked with finding evidence and arguments to support the JW claimed date for the sack of Jeruselem by the Babylonians of 607 BC in order to counter the scholarly accepted date of 587 BC. This date is of great importance in the JW narrative as it is the baseline for their interpretation of history up to, and including, the supposed date of Armeggedon. Instead, Jonsson found that the scholars were right and was disfelloshipped for saying so. This episode is discussed at great length in many books critical of JW [33][34][35].
- During World War II The Watch Tower was smuggled into prisoner camps from Sweden by Himmler's personal masseur who also rescued a number of prisoners from the camps. This episode also is discussed in book sources [36]
- The exemption of JW to military service in Sweden has been used as a basis of a case to the European Commission of Human Rights seeking exemption for other conscientious objectors. Controversially, the case failed with the Commission supporting Sweden's decision to single out JW. Book source [37]
- Ditlieb Felderer, a prominent Swedish Holocaust denier, expelled from JW for his views.[38]

All that is from just the first page of gbooks results, and there was some more stuff without sufficient preview to list it here. Surely someone could write a half-decent article from that? SpinningSpark 14:03, 24 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but most importantly, I'd like to strongly argue against merging with Religion in Sweden, agreeing with Tomas e. Even simply deleting is a better option if it comes to that. Religion in Sweden is trying to give a basic overview. There is a very large number of different faiths and belives in Sweden, as in any country with a large number of immigrants from all over the world. If a religion isn't notable enough for an article on its own, it is definitely not going to be notable enough to merit a section or paragraph in Religion in Sweden, which can't be expected to be the dumping ground for every minor faith that is practiced in the country. The article would become unreadable. Most subjects will be notable enough for their own articles before they merit space in Religion in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument against merging makes no sense. There is already a section at the target article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. See the
Jehovah's Witnesses in Cuba precedent redirected after AfD, There just any meat on these bones; the refs there and here mainly constitute what an existent article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, already covers, and don't deal with anything uniquely Swedish to that criticism (e.g., every war-stricken country gripes when religious pacifists won't serve, etc). Pax 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

When did Sweden become a war-stricken country? I must have missed that on the news. SpinningSpark 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly.* There's nothing notable about JW in Sweden, and the best reference so far is of the government being annoyed by their pacifism in WWII. Pax 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The European Commission of Human Rights case I referenced above is much more recent than that, it is from the eighties. Far from the Swedish government being annoyed by JW pacifism, they granted them exemption to military service while denying it to other COs. That makes it specific to JW and specific to Sweden in a way that cannot be extended to other countries. SpinningSpark 00:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, that can be adequately covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. SpinningSpark 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject deserves to leave. No reasons for the removal. Personal dislike for JW is a bad reason - John Belushi (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has cited "personal dislike for JW" as a reason for deletion. The reason is that JWs in Sweden do not form a significant proportion of either JWs worldwide or people in Sweden, and issues related to JWs in Sweden are not particularly different to JWs in other countries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luhan (singer)

)

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

Despite Asdklf's best intentions (and I appreciate their efforts) I do not see the notability for this person outside of his band--I had redirected it earlier, to

List_of_Exo_members#Luhan, and Asdklf and I have been butting heads ever since. Anyway, I think their claim is that this guy is notable because of his following, for instance--but such a claim is hardly verified by anything other than how many fans read his Weibo posts, and some award handed out by Baidu about internet popularity. Now, he also has a role in a movie that's coming out next year, but that's one role, whose importance cannot be determined without proper sourcing--he might as well be an extra, I can't tell. So, I think the redirect should be restored. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep He has won two awards, one for general popularity within idols and one based on a systematic look of his online influence. He has similarly set a world record for the number of comments on a single Weibo post, which while taken alone is just a cool fact, in conjunction with those awards I think indicates a large fan base, per
WP:ENT #2. No he hasn't had much of a solo career, but he is already a notable figure in two separate entertainment industries, yes stemming from his Exo exposure and the lawsuit, but it has grown beyond that, evidenced by his strength as a solo artist only months after filing the lawsuit. That role in Back to 20 is a lead role, as stated in the article. I don't know how else to say it: he has a cult following. Edit: also his OST contribution to that movie ranked on Baidu Weekly Charts as high as number one. Edit 2: He has also led the Gaon Weibo Chart, a chart that ranks the most popular K-pop artists in China on several occasions 1 2 3 Asdklf; (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that ChannelNewsAsia article spends three sentences on him and I don't see that it has him in a "lead role"--maybe a sub-lead role. I also put very little stock in weekly online popularity contests, but YMMV of course--it seems to me that this is just another part of a publicity machine that measures everything. And mind you, most of the article, after your reinstatement of previous content, pertains to EXO (including refs 2 through 12), leaving precious little about him. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Because Kris also has the same amount of notability outside of EXO (acting and awards) as Luhan does. Just keep Luhan for a while. If Luhan doesn't establish any further notability in the future, then I'll reconsider AfD'ing. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this is one of the top stars in China right now, whose fame has outgrown the band EXO.
Miss Granny, which, incidentally, was released today. -Zanhe (talk) 19:22, 8 January 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) 19:41, 8 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:16, 16 January 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, - The Herald (here I am) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep With the incredible exposure Luhan has generated in the last few months after leaving EXO, he has far exceeded the notability needed for a Wikipedia article. His Weibo tag has over 22 billion views, he has a Guinness World Record and has won numerous awards for his influence and popularity in Chinese entertainment. [40] In addition, Luhan is now the first and only male star from mainland China to be featured on the cover of ELLE magazine and is now the first spokesperson for Baidu in the company's history. [41] "Back to 20" has grossed 326 million RMB in China so far and Luhan plays a lead role in the movie. [42] Emostrich (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A baidu news search will yield more than one thousand news articles about this person, while we only need two to pass
WP:GNG. --218.81.14.78 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 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. czar

⨹ 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Margot & the Nuclear So and So's

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

Previous nomination was speedy closed due to Copvio. Notability question never got answered. Band does not seem to meet

WP:GNG. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they can't understand how to use an apostrophe, they have no place here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indyanapolis (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the

WP:NBAND

page

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
- Animal/Not Animal on the Top Heatseekers Chart at No. 40
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)
- Put out Animal and Not Animal on Epic Records. Their original album The Dust of Retreat was re-released through Artemis Records after success on an indie label release by the Standard Recording Company

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.
- Performed on
  Late Night With Conan O'Brien
  in 2008
- Song "Hello Vagina" was featured on The CW's One Tree Hill

There's 4 of the qualifications right away. And there are more, but no specific sources (Margot's reputation as an Indianapolis band for example). Indyanapolis (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good review in PopMatters, plus all the other print writeups per Indyanapolis? A good firm Keep, even with their grammar-taunting ways. Earflaps (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the coverage given is a bit thin, but the PopMatters and Hybrid articles more than raise the curve in my mind. Likewise the 2 releases on Epic are different versions of the same album, but I still think that meets the spirit of BAND. Throw in the Heatseekers charting (which is one of Billboards numerous charts these days) and top off with appearing on Conan, and notability is well established in my mind. The sources listed above should also be inserted into the article, either as external links, or inline cites supporting the content, as the refs in the article now are sparse. Crow^Caw 00:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unfortunately we need proof of notability, more than the suggestion of possible notability. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Tripon

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

I don't see any particular indication this individual might meet

WP:BAND

points 2-12. As for point 1, let's work our way through the sources presented.

A list of honorary citizens of Negrești-Oaș. Receiving honorary citizenship from any municipality is not by itself an indicator of notability. It certainly isn't when the town in question has under 12,000 inhabitants.

Announcements (1, 2, 3, 4) that a film which includes the subject in the cast is going to play in a provincial town. Again, a bit of a reach.

A similar announcement

A directory entry for said film

A video clip

We also have a link to a book about the subject. While that sounds impressive at first, the fact is that the press which put it out is a self-publishing outfit: "Have a manuscript? We'll take care of the editing, and figure out a price together."

Finally, there are some newspaper articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The problem with these is twofold: one, they're puff pieces with little pretense of objectivity. Two, the papers are very small and local in nature. One of them, Informația Zilei, sells 6,000 copies a day. The other two are not even listed in the circulation figures. A notable Romanian singer will generally feature in the national, Bucharest-based press, or at the very least, in the press from Cluj-Napoca, the nearest metropolis to Tripon. That is simply not the case here, which is telling.

One other note:
Oaș Country. Strange. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 1 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Lacks notability. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:45, 4 January 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, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Biruitorul, it would have been courteous if you had notified the creator (and main contributor) of this article, Taraoasuluiro. While editor Paul A notified Taraoasuluiro of your speedy deletion nomination, the current AfD nomination has not yet been mentioned to Taraoasuluiro, and it's likely that Taraoasuluiro is unaware of the discussion on this page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have no strong opposition to deleting the article and I noticed that editor Andrei Stroe tagged the
Look TV.[53] (Search "Maria Tripon" on YouTube and browse through the resulting pages to find more stations. You can tell them apart by on-screen text and logos.) She's not just a local singer. She' just notable enough for inclusion. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note that said criterion applies to "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries". However, it does not include video clips of singers, so mere television appearances during live entertainment performances are also not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To (re)summarize the gist of my scribblings above: I believe that she is fairly well-known in Romania and is just notable enough for inclusion.

WikiProject Romania for input. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deeplink (company)

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

Article is an advertisement for a non-notable startup that fails

WP:NCORP. Sources are press releases or not independent. Vrac (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Vrac (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator responds:

Company is one of only a small handful of companies developing an emerging technology - Mobile deep linking, and is leading development in that space.

Competing

WP:NCORP

- filing AfD against one and not the other is biased. Either all the companies of the same size and developing the same product at the same time are equally notable, or else none of them are, and all of them should be deleted.

Article sources (currently eight, in addition to three company sources) are from five different organizations:

notable
and non-notable companies
Kiip (7) - a broadcaster of news snippets that are inserted into video games
TechCrunch (2,3,6,8) - a professionally edited, industry "insider" news source covering evolving technologies, which has cited Deeplink in four different articles (at least)
The American Genius (5) - a general news site
Yahoo! New Zealand
(9) - an even more general news site

Sources 2, 5, and 6 describe the company and its products in the context of new releases, with en passant references to competitors.

Source 3 compares the company's product to two other similar products.

Source 7 discusses the company and its product as one of four new companies/products being reviewed.

Source 8 discusses a new feature release in the context of other products.

Source 9 compares three companies operating in the new technology space.

For a new company developing a new technology, that is a significant amount of coverage, and the notability is because they are advancing the state of the art.

I've not found more coverage than that because it is, after all, an arcane, back-end technology without a consumer face; it is meant to be used by mobile developers to transparently provide a better user experience; non-developers and users won't be aware that this technology is powering their product.

The sources I discussed in detail were written by different professional journalists on different, edited news sites, and are neither press releases nor written by company employees, so neither of the template claims that "Sources are press releases or not independent" are true.

In short, I consider this delete proposal to be entirely without merit or justification. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 05:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:ORG. The article is clearly a promotional piece for a company that has not been around long enough to accumulate any encyclopedic status. The linked sources are clearly either based on press releases, primary sources, or inadmissible blogs and search engine page, and some of the sources are completely disallowed by Wikipedia including the external links. When something substantial has been written in multiple sources in the traditional established business press - preferably in print media, or a TV documentary has been dedicated to it, then someone who is not connected with the company can write an article about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not associated with the company and I did not write a "promotional piece." I do not understand why several other editors have leveled this accusation at me - if the tone is not "encyclopedic" enough, then I would like assistance to improve it. Your stringencies of sources are more than are called for by

WP:RS. I researched Mobile deep linking for my RL day job, and I found three companies offering products / services in that sphere. Deeplink (founded 2010, as Cellogic,) was the only one of the three without a WP article, so I created one. Of the other two – URX (company) (founded 2013) and Quixey (founded 2009,) the former has a briefer article with fewer citations than this one, yet no one has slapped an AfD on it. The latter has many more sources, but includes all kinds of irrelevancies like the fact that they had a coding contest or that they have designer-themed conference rooms in the office, which are hardly things that I consider "encyclopedic," and which seem to have been written up simply because Quixey is in Silicon Valley, while URX is in San Francisco and Deeplink is in NYC and Jerusalem. Yet that list of sources, too, is mostly Mashable, TechCrunch, and other technology "blog-zines" exactly the same as I used for this article. If we have WP articles about the other two companies, one with fewer citations and one with lots of irrelevant fluff, then I would like to know why only Deeplink out of the three companies has been singled out as not "notable." --Eliyahu S ^Talk 17:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

See

WP:OTHERSTUFF. We have over 3,000 people patrolling new articles. They are not all as experienced as the nominator or I am so a lot of stuff gets let through. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 11 January 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 00:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about

Pokémon. There are a total of three articles about three similar startups doing the same kind of work. The company in question is actually the middle one in terms of number of sources and “notability” by media references (URX (company) has 5, Deeplink (company) has 8, Quixey

has 23.) The kinds of sources are largely the same - high tech blogzines, Mashable, TechCrunch, et al. IMO, AfD should either apply to all three or to none. Saying that the other two articles "got let through" by other patrollers and they are now "safe," while the one that I wrote is not, is risibly unfair. I am asking my article to be judged on the same merits as the other two articles, and that ALL THREE be deleted, or else NONE. Otherwise I feel unjustly singled out.

And that says nothing about my request for help with copyediting. If the complaint is about the tone of the article, as User:Lamerparlepont expressed by slapping an {{advert}} tag on it, then I think that improving the article is called for, rather than deleting it. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 08:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate the other pages for deletion. As one of the people who regularly go through not only the new pages, but also the

WP:MULTIAFD for why pages are typically nominated one-by-one.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy Keep.
WP:PEACOCK needs fixing. Earflaps (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
WP:SK. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

On what basis are you surmising that TechCrunch "isn't very reputable?" I'm not sure their impressive stable of journalists would appreciate that. the crunchie awards are a big deal, and TechCrunch articles are regularly included as sources in Good Articles about tech companies (see Facebook). On top of that, their journalists have won international awards, and the publication won a webby award. in the future, glancing at a website's design to see if it looks "reputable" doesn't do much good, you might want to try research. Earflaps (talk) 14:14, 24 January 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind TechCrunch as a source. As I started my previous post: "TechCrunch clearly wrote about the Deeplink company, but the other sources [...]" Note that my opinion is not that TechCrunch is not (very) reputable, but "not "very reputable" as a source for Wikipedia articles". By that I mean(t) that it is not very reputable as a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:GF, maybe you should not be making. But, again, that TechCrunch is used as a reference is not this article's problem. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah. Not as reputable as a 150 year-old print newspaper? Well of course it isn't, but it's still "very reputable." The Facebook article, for example, uses TechCrunch as a breaking source for coverage on multi-million dollar transactions. Forgive me for being rude, but nominating a page for deletion without fact-checking first, is, to me, the height of rudeness, and I try to politely point that out when I can. Otherwise people spend time arguing pointlessly, when they could be editing or improving. Earflaps (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're still focusing on TechCrunch too much. Plus "nominating a page for deletion without fact-checking first" is yet another problematic remark. It implies that Vrac did not "fact-check" and the remark (thus) goes against
WP:GF. Maybe Vrac did "fact-check" and simply came to a different conclusion than you. I agree with the scope of his nomination, Deeplink is a non-notable startup and the references are clearly insufficient. TechCrunch, that's one usable source; that's simply not enough. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally find this deletion discussion absurd, but then, as you point out, we seem to have different working definitions of "sufficient and reputable coverage." Earflaps (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that TechCrunch is reliable, then why doesn't a total of four different articles from that source over more than a year create a case for notability? And the Yahoo! article doesn't just mention the company "in passing"; the article is talking about three different companies, and has one paragraph each for Deeplink's two competitors, and then includes two paragraphs about Deeplink, followed by several paragraphs explaining the technology that all three are developing. And please don't get me started on NYT's "fact-checking"; I personally know someone who was slandered on the cover of the New York Times - they subsequently apologized after he threatened legal action, as his notification to them that they had misidentified him and wrongly accused him was insufficient for their "fact checkers" to bother with.

The simple fact is that
WP:ORG as some here interpret it. I'll wager that every editor discussing this has at least one app on their smartphone with at least one of these three companies' products embedded within, and yet that will not be considered "notable." Does that make sense?!!--Eliyahu S ^Talk 02:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - a present just for you IP, I found an article at CNBC. Earflaps (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could do with some tweaking, but it is far from advertising. The obscure nature of their area of expertise does mean it has to be explained what they do, which leans towards promotional in writing. I really can't be bothered arguing about you suggesting TechCrunch is not reliable as that is just stupid. Here Reuters cites them, here ABC News cites them. That's about all I feel we need to determine TechCrunch is reliable. JT_dale^Talk~ 10:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvester42

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Harvester42

Articles for deletion/Harvester42 (2nd nomination)

Harvester42 (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 defunct university search aggregator project. There's no independent sources at all - the whole thing is supported only by a couple of research papers by the group that created it; seven years of waiting for a single reliable source is more than enough. There's no evidence that this was ever widely used or had any influence on anything. Now the site itself, and that of the researcher who made it, is gone. A
WP:ORG specifically. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, the "no consensus" conclusion of the administrator at the end of the previous deletion discussion was erroneous. The only thing that kept the previous discussion from being solid "delete" !votes (other than that of the article's creator, Ivo) was Pharmboy's discovery of the Pubmed database, whereupon he changed his opinion to Keep and Tcrow777 agreed with him. Neither Tcrow777 nor the administrator took notice of my observation and that of Yobmod that being indexed by Pubmed is no more evidence of notability of an academic project than being indexed by Google is evidence of the notability of a website.
WP:ROUTINE was applicable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'm kind of amazed that this didn't get deleted the first time. I could find no valid references. And the article itself has no refs and doesn't make much sense. The first sentence in the intro is: "Currently no search engine covers the entire internet." How does Google not "cover the entire Internet"? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 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. only (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Diamond Arrow - Golden Warriors

The Diamond Arrow - Golden Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a very recently released book. I believe that the Wikipedia article was created
too soon, as I can locate no evidence of professional reviews anywhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:Spam by new account who somehow knew on his first day how to add tables to Wikipedia articles. Pax 00:46, 30 January 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) 00:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dub punk

Dub punk (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:SPA. I can't find any reliable secondary sources. CSD challenged so will post AfD to allow broad consensus to evolve. Gaff (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 23 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 13:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely non-notable – I think a whopping 15 followers on Soundcloud says it all. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Earflaps (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above - Non notable band. –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 24 January 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. only (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VMG Network

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

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

A
WP:A7 candidate as a "website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 18 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 13:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:ADMASQ. Pax 01:15, 30 January 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. only (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Lorain

Pierre Lorain (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 was created recently by a single purpose user, and
WP:BASIC. (Disclosure: I was 114.81.255.37)--101.84.61.131 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh 666 21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 07:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)--218.81.14.78 (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 23 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 13:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails
WP:BIO. Vrac (talk) 03:06, 27 January 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Banking Solutions

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

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

The article is blatant advertising, created and heavily edited by two users, User:Tvanpeursem and User:Twestra, both of whom seem to be associated with the company (as their names seem to be in their usernames). The tone of the article is clearly promotional, even including several sentences starting with "we" and "our", so the intent of the article is clear. V2Blast (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (palaver) @ 13:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 3rd party client links provided in the article serve to verify a firm doing business, but that can be said of all operating firms everywhere. As to the question at hand here, multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not returning anything that indicates attained
notability. AllyD (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:ADMASQ. Pax 01:20, 30 January 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. Michig (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity Network, Inc.

Opportunity Network, Inc. (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)

Business promo put up by
WP:COI based on user name. DB-SPAM --Gaff (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Gaff (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments For clarity of editors looking for reliable secondary notable source, the current article is NOT about the similarly named non-profit group The Opportunity Network. Also, it is suspected that the "ON" in Username Flippo ON signifies the connection to the business directory/article written. (See also: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#DIRECTORY) Gaff (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a business promotion. All information supported by proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippo ON (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC) — Filippo ON (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would like to state that the no-profit organisation under the name "The Opportunity Network" has nothing to do with Opportunity Network, Inc. Just relying on the sources made in my editing you can EASILY understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filippo ON (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (face) @ 13:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I don't agree that the article is overtly promotional, I do not believe that the organization meets the
criteria for inclusion. The coverage available all appears to be from first-person interviews with the organization's founder, and has the appearance of "advertorial" content. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:ADMASQ. "...an exclusive social network devoted to CEOs and founders of companies..." "Members can anonymously share and connect with diverse commercial opportunities..." Oh, please. How would these bigshot CEOs even know they're talking to other important bigshots if they're all anonymous? And oh look, anybody can join, so it's not "exclusive" in the least. Pax 01:46, 30 January 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. czar
⨹ 03:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Package Drone

Package Drone (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)

One man software package; article probably written by the software's author. No sign of this meeting
WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 13:27, 31 January 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. postdlf (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Legends

Disney Legends (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)

An award given by the Disney Company to its own employees, I cannot find significant coverage in any independent reliable sources- there are only mere mentions in news articles about recipients. The only (numerous) references are to internal Disney websites, which are clearly not independent of the subject. Award doesn't satisfy notability requirements. --
Wikipedical (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – I support the nomination. The award gets namechecked a few times in books about Disney and animators and voice-over artists etc, but I can't find any significant trade coverage of the award or the ceremony. It sounds like a glorified corporate bash. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 1 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I acknowledge the logic behind this AfD nomination, and I agree that it's essentially a corporate honor, but I find some substantial attention to this award program in the entertainment press, at least (multiple hits in
Hollywood Reporter, for example), and even if that press coverage isn't as purely independent as we'd like, I think that Disney's creative reputation, especially in the animation field, is sufficiently strong and distinctive to make this list of award winners a sort of checklist of important figures within Disney history, and a worthwhile component of Wikipedia's coverage of the area. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Other than mentions in obituaries and news articles, where in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter have you found significant coverage of Disney Legends,
Wikipedical (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see why news articles would be excluded. Quick examples from what's readily available online: [54] [55] [56]. As for obituaries: each mention of this award in an obit, taken separately, is not an example of substantial coverage, but I think the fact that this honor gets mentioned consistently in obits may be seen, in the aggregate, as a further indicator of the relevance of the award.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:51, 7 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:28, 13 January 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, Rcsprinter¹²³ (confer) @ 12:54, 24 January 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.--218.81.14.78 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-media Telecommunication Laboratory of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

Multi-media Telecommunication Laboratory of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article does not meet
WP:A7. Tagged yesterday but no references added. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) @ 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (report) @ 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, does not meet
WP:GNG--DThomsen8 (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Obvious G4 (and so tagged). Pax 01:49, 30 January 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. (
WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Edson Almeida

Edson Almeida (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)

Relatively young footballer, non-notable. Just played in one match, notability is still missing. Fails
WP:NFOOTBALL A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 13:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 13:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) @ 13:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in a competitive Cup game between two teams from
WP:NFOOTBALL, plenty of consensus at AFD that this is sufficient. Needs improving to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per GiantSnowman meets
WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Having played a cup match between two
WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - passes
WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Has also played in two more 2014–15 Taça da Liga matches against FC Porto and Rio Ave F.C. (playing the full 90 minutes each match). The article definitely needs improvement, not deletion. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:37, 31 January 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. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Town of Salem

Town of Salem (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 came across this article and deleted copyright violations and marked an unreferenced statement. After evaluating it further I am concerned about the topic's notability, and I do not believe this page satisfies
notability. I'm not entirely opposed to merging this content into Mafia (party game), as an alternative, although I'm not sure that even this is appropriate, because there are quite a decent number of games based on Mafia and covering them all would tend to detract from that article. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Despite being a kickstarter backer of this game, I personally don't think it is notable in the least. No coverage I can find anywhere. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, which is unfortunate as I play Town of Salem online and it is a great game, but there really are no other options. There is this and this in terms of coverage, but unless more sources are found thry aren't enough. Merging to Mafia (party game) may also work. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I performed a Google search and got some coverage. The game was one of the entrants at the International Games Festival, and an independent review here. The problem with the second link is that I'm not too sure whether it is a blog or a professional one. Ethically^Yours! 12:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
talk) 19:18, 20 January 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, Ethically^Yours! 08:59, 24 January 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. only (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshire Country Club

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

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

this private golf course looks quite unremarkable. Just promotional? Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 13:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 13:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic content, no claim of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local country club golf course, of which there are thousands in the United States. Satisfies neither
WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - This is classic
run-of-the-mill. Can be listed on the achitect's bio article or mentioned on the town's article, but does not need its own page. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 31 January 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. only (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Bottom Drumline

Apple Bottom Drumline (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 drumline that had a single performance 8 years ago? No. Not notable, and this group has had no lasting impact. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (jive) @ 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pax 01:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see encyclopedic relevance here. --Michig (talk) 09:34, 31 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Androphobia

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Androphobia

Articles for deletion/Androphobia (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Androphobia (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Androphobia (4th nomination)

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

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

There are two uses of "androphobia" out there:

the psychological condition of an abnormal fear of men (a phobia);

a term used to mean misandry (either a neologism or malapropism).

The current article offers only a
WP:DICDEF
which distinguishes the two terms.
But there's a bigger problem than DICDEF: There are not sufficient sources about #1 that meet our standards for psychological articles (
WP:MEDRS
). I can't find sufficient evidence it's even recognized as a real condition. There are indeed lots of google hits for the word, but close inspection shows that the overwhelming majority of them use it in the #2 sense and, again, those that don't are not reliable.
Even if someone were to argue that MEDRS doesn't apply to the GNG (and I'm not sure it doesn't), passing the GNG would be meaningless if there aren't enough reliable sources we can use to create a viable encyclopedia article.
My inclination was to boldly redirect this to misandry because of popular usage, but as was pointed out in the merge discussion at Talk:Misandry a while back, the terms should not be conflated in this way. The only other possible target I could think of was List of phobias but the inclusion criteria for that list looks to require a Wikipedia article. The only solution seems to be delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly unsourced neologism. At best, it's a
WP:DICDEF and doesn't belong here - Alison ^❤ 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Doesn't "Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary" and perhaps "MedicineNet.com" qualify as a reliable source? --Pip25 (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the most basic level, I would agree that Taber's is a reliable source. In this case, however, the entirety of the entry in Taber's for this is "Morbid fear of men." Although I don't have prior experience with MedicineNet.com, it certainly does not look reliable. That's not to say there isn't reliable content on the site, but that the entry for Androphobia is a cookie cutter database entry. It takes two etymologies, puts them together, and provides a standard definition that appears to be the exact same language as every other -phobia: "An abnormal and persistent fear of ____. Sufferers experience anxiety even though they may realize they face no real threat." Those phobias that are better known/documented have more information. This does not. On top of that, two definitions does not an encyclopedia make. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good thinking Rhododendrites. BakerStMD T|C 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I turned up one article titled "Andro-phobia", but the styling suggests an intentional neologism and the article is a media criticism/queer studies piece, not really about the phobia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:40, 30 January 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 deleted per A7. Materialscientist (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Order of Loyal Wolf

Independent Order of Loyal Wolf (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)

Hoax? I find nothing to support the existence of this organization, much less notability. The references are inadequate. Google turns up nil. See article creators other malformed contribution as well Loyal Order of Wolf Gaff (talk) 05:57, 24 January 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. czar
⨹ 02:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Scout vespers

Scout vespers (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)

Ping when replying 05:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 16:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There appear to be a few version of this camp song, with varying lyrics and varying degrees of official recognition and sanction. What there is not, however, is discussion of this song in independent, reliable sources. And with entire books of camp songs having been printed by the BSA over the years, I don't think there's much value for a merge or redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear notable. Wikipedia is not a repository for song lyrics. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about origins of this, or which association(s) use it, but suggest exporting basic content to Scouting and redirect. DiverScout (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Actually *Delete - information is not really sourced, other than as one of the hundreds of such campfire songs, and would not really fit into parent site. The information is already covered on Scoutwiki - http://en.scoutwiki.org/Boy_Scout_Vespers DiverScout (talk) 18:29, 31 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WallStreet Tower Omaha

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/WallStreet Tower Omaha

Articles for deletion/WallStreet Tower Omaha (2nd nomination)

WallStreet Tower Omaha (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 nominated this back in 2007 as non-notable, I received resistance and the article was kept despite the fact that the structure had never even broken ground. I was reviewing some of my old nominations and came across this, lo and behold, they never broke ground! This was obviously
WP:TOOSOON I don't see how a structure that almost got built is notable enough to warrant an article. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonexistent structure and aside perhaps how it may have added to the Omaha skyline not notable anyway.--MONGO 07:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Some buildings are notable even if they never get built, but this article was always about a development project. There was very little about the building except as a property. The links are all dead, the links from the previous AfD are dead, and the two links I could find from the TV station (main source of previous AfD) were this and this, which are about the abandoned site as real estate. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of
WP:ROUTINE news coverage. Tavix | Talk

Delete Really couldn't find any notable information about this building Sec12345 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 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) 07:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K. N. Srivastava

K. N. Srivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem notable enough to warrant a Wiki page. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It actually does seem
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Right, so many newspapers and media have individually printed his activities. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I did find most of these sources as part of my
WP:BEFORE, but didn't find any material wiki-worthy. If you are interested in developing it into a proper article, please give it a go. But I would be surprised if anything noteworthy crops up. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Please do not get offended, I only meant to say in case you didn't take a look at in particular
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
To meet
WP:GNG, you need to be able to answer the question, what is this person notable for? Mere mention in news sources is not enough. People that hold important posts make decisions that affect a lot of people. So, they are bound to get mentioned in the media. But that is not notability of the person, just the notability of the post. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
OK. GNG is defined as "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources", and here is the sources you may want to take a look at, Zee News, Livemint, Tehelka, The Hindu, The Hindu, Firstpost. Don't you think, if he has received this much coverage in the Indian mainstream daily English newspapers, he is likely to receive or have been received some in
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep As director general of the Archaeological Survey of India, and taking all minor coverage together he seems notable. The quality of the article is not considered in AfD process (ruling out plagiarism/promotion/etc). --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:42, 14 January 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) 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of a national government agency seems like a notable posting, and additional evidence of notability is given in the existence of an article in The Hindu about him at his previous posting. Well sourced for its length. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 25 January 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
Chaudhry. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Nokhwal

Nokhwal (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 caste. Google search returns no hits [57]. The article claims that they are the sam as "
Choudhary". In that case, the article should also be deleted, as we already have "Choudhary" article. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Choudhary. If the two castes are indeed the same, then a redirect might be useful for people searching for this alternate name. – Majora4 (leave a message) 00:38, 12 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:01, 24 January 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 Doug Casey. No firm arguments in favour of keeping, redirect has sufficient support. Michig (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The International Man

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

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

Please see this revision of the article with sources indicating notability of this book. User Lfrankbalm some time ago redirected the article to Doug Casey based on a merge discussion which never happened (the merge was reverted), and over the past couple days they have progressively stripped sourced info from the article, leaving the unsourced stub you see now. I was about to restore the earlier revision, however when doing a search on the topic I see that the available sources are either written by or closely affiliated with Casey, or unreliable libertarian blogs, and in fact the notability of the book is very much questionable. Given the article history I don't think a bold redirect would stick, so I am nominating here. Ivanvector (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Haven't looked to thoroughly for sources, but one linked does mention that "Casey's book The International Man was the most sold book in the history of Rhodesia." Not sure how to verify that, though.. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I see why the old version was gutted. The stub is about a book published in the 1970's. The old version contains a sales pitch and it also is not written in a way that makes sense. If it is not deleted then the new version needs to be kept. It is much better.Wayver (talk) 17:46, 10 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - in case it wasn't clear from my nomination statement, I am in favour of redirecting the article to Doug Casey, the author's article, since the book does not appear to be separately notable. It could be mentioned there. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 24 January 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. Michig (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino films and TV series based on Wattpad stories

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 list of mostly non-notable television series and films, most of them with weak sources (Twitter tweets such as this one are not a reliable source). Furthermore, inclusion in the list is apparently based on
WP:LISTCRUFT. bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

delete as for the other article. Independent sources convey notability, there's nothing reliable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
tutterMouse (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
tutterMouse (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
tutterMouse (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
tutterMouse (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
tutterMouse (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, while the shoddy referencing on miniseries in the "Released#Television" section should be fixed, most of the references for the films and full-length TV series are good enough. –H T D 20:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - reliability of Philippines sources is often in the eye of the beholder. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 13 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:00, 24 January 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) 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Water Resources Archive at Colorado State University

Water Resources Archive at Colorado State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of
WP:ORG: lacking significant coverage from independent, third-party sources. The subject is basically a thematic collection of materials in a university library: every library has them, and they are routinely used for research: Nothing inherently notable here. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I thought maybe it could be inserted and the article redirected to here but notability is lacking.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 10 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator, notability isn't established here and the subject lacks independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage, no independent notability, does not remotely pass
WP:GNG. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 31 January 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. Michig (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads (Sanjay Shrestha)

Crossroads (Sanjay Shrestha) (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 show how it passes GNG for bands or artists
talk) 12:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sanjay Shrestha. I think the references in the article alone are enough for notability. One of the most popular pop artists in Nepal in the 1990s. Two books and a web profile in English should be enough. According to this he still releases albums under the Crossroads name, although the band disbanded a decade ago. Hence redirect. Merge the band member names and references. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zherebko

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alexander Zherebko

Articles for deletion/Alexander Zherebko (2nd nomination)

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

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

This is a speedy renomination. My previous concern was External links inadequate to justify importance. Fails
WP:DIRECTOR. Results on Google are social media and passing mentions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 9 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 20:27, 16 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources to meet WP:ENT or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability hasn't been demonstrated in the article, and searches in Google, including the Ukrainian version, didn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. The Russian language version of the article isn't any better. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (
WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Midnight Raver

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

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

This is simply a blog, and while interesting as blogs go, it doesn't appear notable. Claims of being featured in several sources are false - a few of them simply mention the site briefly. This article and several of the citations to it appear to be being used as promotion. I found no significant coverage of this blog and don't see how it meets any of our notability criteria. Michig (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 9 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 20:24, 16 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (
WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Niloofar Parsa

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

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

No evidence of notability. The contents of the article don't suggest much notability, the one reference that is not a dead link is an interview on a site of unclear significance, & searches produce a high proportion of hits to blogs, Facebook, etc. Even IMDb's biography says only "Niloofar Parsa is an actress, known for Avaye baran (2013)." (Note: a PROD was removed without explanation in March 2014 by an IP editor with no edits except to this article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 12:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 9 January 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 20:24, 16 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i went on google and i found a couple of returns. 92.1.53.60 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 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
⨹ 02:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Girls' Invasion

Girls' Invasion (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 chart information is already on
WP:GNG. Random86 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lovelyz#Discography - per nom. Tibbydibby (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a charting, full-legnth album containing at least one hit-single (Candy Jelly Love).

OpenSourceDev42 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Lovelyz. Given that the group have only released one album, the content could be included there. --Michig (talk) 09:30, 31 January 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. Article has been moved to Draft space. In view of COI issues, I will
salt the title and advise the article author to submit the draft for independent review if he wants to return it to the mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Jason Thanh La

Jason Thanh La (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)

Setting aside the obvious advertising problems, this article fails to establish notability. The few
WP:COI, as well. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize, I tried to create the page as close to current accepted pages on Wikipedia like Bryan Johnson of Braintree, with as much general biographical information and citations to any source that discussed the page's details more or demonstrated the details asserted are true. Is this not how the process works? I want to make this page be valid and acceptable, I would welcome advice please! Thank you for your help! No Funny Money (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered some of your questions on the article's talk page.
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reliable argument in deletion discussions, and it's best to focus on policy instead of precedent. The current sources for this article are too flimsy, and (again, setting aside the promotional problems) appeared to be padding out the article to make him appear more notable than he actually is. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability. Sources offered are either not reliable or simply fail to mention the subject at all. Though not by itself a reason to delete, I note in addition that the article appears to be an WP:Autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (post) @ 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I'm sorry it's not to snuff! Would it be possible for me to please place the article back in my user space so I can work on it and add more sources if and when they become available and later re-introduce back to Wikipedia? No Funny Money (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. aborting the discussion now and moving the article is a form of
WP:GAME. Not good. After this version is deleted, you can request it to be copied in to draft space again, but I highly suggest using Wikipedia:Articles for creation since you have an obvious conflict of interest, and not a clear understanding of the requirements for the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 27 January 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. Michig (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marc Rousseau

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Paul Marc Rousseau

Articles for deletion/Paul Marc Rousseau (2nd nomination)

Paul Marc Rousseau (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)

Relisting for further discussion because my first nomination failed to garner any participation at all after two relists — and an editor has continually reverted any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect anyway, even though AFD consensus is not required for a redirect. The problem here remains that
WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). (Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told, which did generate participation and was closed as a redirect for the same reasons that are applicable here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep greater notability outside the band than was true for Told, who has been with the band since the start. There are sufficient reliable sources, including primary sources such as blogs used with caution (which is permitted) to establish notability.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of him is all within the context of the band, and consists of being namechecked within articles whose primary subject is the band. And primary sources are permitted for additional
reliable sources have been added to cover off the basic notability issue, but never under any circumstances count for anything toward the establishment of the topic's notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's very interesting. I've been on Wikipedia almost a decade and the number of times I've seen "never under any circumstances" is minimal. You dismiss the sources you don't like, deem guidelines rigid rules, and give every break against the article. Primary sources are RS, they just need to be used with care. There are ample sources establishing notability. The content is usable and sourced, and it is difficult to see why the reader should be denied it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If
reliable source coverage that determines whether a person gets in here or not, and the reliable source coverage in this case is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 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 01:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now it has been listed five times in less than two months. Is this like a European referendum, it goes on until the "proper" answer is given, and then stops? Or is it best two out of three?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish an actual consensus one way or the other. It's not a question of "the correct answer" — if there were a "keep" consensus, then the article would have to be kept even if I still disagreed with that — but there has to be a consensus one way or the other. A "no-consensus" close, which is where the first one landed, resolves nothing — especially when it was "no consensus because nobody participated". Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:MUSICBIO individually and a redirect is appropriate, with no prejudice to going back to an article once he actually does something noteworthy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:59, 23 January 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 00:53, 24 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Burns (activist)

Gary Burns (activist) (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
Surturz (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. Most of the coverage is primary or secondary sources like links to court proceedings. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 18 January 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 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, fails
WP:BASIC. No in-depth coverage, coverage is of the people Burns is suing, not Burns himself. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, very best it has got is a news site about which you probably never heard before. VandVictory (talk) 17:43, 26 January 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) 02:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeusM

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/DeusM

Articles for deletion/DeusM (2nd nomination)

DeusM (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)

Substantively unchanged recreation of previously deleted page by obvious COI account: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DeusM Pinkbeast (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't speedy G4 it because it has been edited since. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 2011 version of this article was deleted after an AFD and two trips through DRV (then userfied on request). For reference, this is the version that was originally deleted at userfied. In order to survive this AFD, enough has to have changed to demonstrate that notability and inclusion standards are met. My opinion: no, it has not. A
Advertising Age, which can sometimes be a reliable source. However, they also publish promotional copy, and it is not always obvious what content is truly independent. In this case, I suspect the articles are not truly indpendent; they all have a promotional tone, and all have the same author (despite one misspelling in the citation, all three are by Charlotte Woolard). But even assuming they are independent reporting, they provide little evidence of notability: one described DeusM as "UBM's integrated marketing services unit",[58] while another discusses a platform created by "the company's [UBM Tech's] DeusM group".[59] I just don't see a case for independent notability. I'd support, at best, a redirect to the article for the parent company which already provides a brief mention of DeusM. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (utter) @ 18:41, 17 January 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 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the efforts to fluff it up, still lacks reliable, non-advertorial sourcing.
WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I found press releases but nothing that could be considered significant or independent enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 31 January 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, copyright issues addressed via a history merge. Graham87 12:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Longshaw

Ted Longshaw (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)

Whilst it passes notability guidelines, my rationale is that this is an unauthorized article creation (as it was copied from my namespace by another editor and created without my knowledge/consent and it isn't yet completed.
I am having to AfD this rather than CfD as there is no speedy deletion criteria for unauthorized article creation.
Note: according to revision histories, his "article" was created on 28 December 2014‎ and mine was on 13 October 2013 Donnie Park (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but address issues of copyright. Copying the work of others without attribution is still copyvio but have you raised this issue with Nerdfighter8842 who created the main-space article? According to this version of his user page he is a 16-year-old high school student. Regardless, copyvio is copyvio. We may need to look at a history-merge to ensure proper attribution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall Graham87 is pretty history-merge-savvy. Graham87, Graham87, do you read me? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am annoyed with this is that I had plans to get this into
WP:DYK along other articles I had worked on, because I was only aware of this creation long after the 5 day deadline, I feel that it is too late now. I hope my plan isn't dead. Donnie Park (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I can understand that. The DYK folks are usually pretty reasonable. I'm happy to go with you there and help explain what happened if it comes to that. It's frustrating. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Donnie Park (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom: Template:Did you know nominations/Ted Longshaw Donnie Park (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (state) @ 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 22 January 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 00:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Donnie Park and Stalwart111: I have no idea why I didn't get the notification about this discussion (I only found it by accident while searching for my username in the Wikipedia namespace). I've performed the history merge and closed this AFD. Graham87 12:40, 29 January 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 03:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Juengling

Fritz Juengling (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)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Charles Fritz Juengling

Previously deleted (Feb 2014) because the sources were not, as it turned out, about the subject. This article, most of which is written byby the same user, basically has the same problem. 1. A reference in another book to a book written by the subject. Not a source about the subject. 2. Ditto. 3. Ditto. 4. Tangential discussion of ideas advocated by the subject, not about th subject. 5. Per 1. 6. Directory entry (namecheck only). 7. Reference to a book by the subject 8. Reference line in a thesis. 9. Mailing list 10. Forum / mailing list 11. Book about genealogy which references books by the subject, but is not about the subject. 12. Ditto. 13. Ditto. 14. Ditto. 15. Ditto. 16. Ditto. 17. List of past winners, totality of reference is: "'89 Fritz Juengling, Sprague High ". Yes, that is a reference to something he did in high school. 18. Per 11. 19. Per 11. So: 19 references, mainly added bythe same user who wrote the original deleted article, not one of which is about the subject. Last time we deleted it due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This time we have much more lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
Literally the only thing we can infer fomr these sources, per policy, is that the subject exists and has written some stuff that has been cited. I could quickly list 100 personal acquaintances who meet the same criteria, not one of whom has an article, or indeed should have.
I admire the determination of the subject's fans to write an article, but admonish them for failing to learn anything from the previous deletion. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and my comment
WP:N. If someone wanted to call this a G4 Speedy Delete candidate I don't think I would challenge them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, per nom. Does appear to fit {{
conflict of interest going on here. Valfontis (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to clarify that the reference #17 is not about something the subject did in high school. It is a reference to the fact that the subject, who is a 1989 graduate of Western Oregon University, was nominated in 2007 for a Salem-Keizer School District teaching award (the Crystal Apple) for his work teaching at Sprague High School in Salem, Oregon. Nomination (he didn't win) for a nice but non-notable local (not statewide) award however, still doesn't confer notability. Valfontis (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability per
WP:AUTHOR. Being nominated for and not winning a local teaching award is certainly not enough, and neither is writing academic publications without evidence that they have had a significant impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Social network sites and other free listings. Nothing much. VandVictory (talk) 17:36, 26 January 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. czar
⨹ 02:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning

Tyrannosaurus Rex: A Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be notable or worthy of its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As merely a compilation of two albums, I agree with nom to Delete. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: It was a UK no. 1 entity, so if deleted I don’t see how you can represent it in a succession of no. 1 things… Even if it’s two albums in one, it should count as a compilation. - -
talk) 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 18:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 22 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both T. Rex discography and List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 1970s link to the two albums separately and the significant information about those albums including this re-release are all there. For those interested in "succession", one just needs to look at the number ones list. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The compilation exists, and was a number one, but from what I've found it didn't have this title, and in case there isn't enough content to justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 09:27, 31 January 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Region Airport Authority

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Capital Region Airport Authority

Articles for deletion/Capital Region Airport Authority (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Capital Region Airport Authority (3rd nomination)

Capital Region Airport Authority (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 because I can't find significant coverage. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 January 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 18:00, 16 January 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi

Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi (2nd nomination)

Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi (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 fail to meet the relevant notability guideline according to
WP:V policy, should be deleted from Wikipedia, moreover it was also listed and resulted as Delete in 24th January 2008 deletion log -- Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 15:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Struck delete vote by nominator. Your nomination is your vote. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed thanks, I forgot that. :) -- Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, and I don't see any other reason to keep. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 31 January 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_January_24&oldid=1142625942"