Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 6 January 8 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centene Corporation

Centene_Corporation (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 page is little more than an advertisement, and has remained so for well over a year. The only major recent contributor to the page edits primarily this page and is located in the same city as the corporation's main offices. OmnipotentEntity (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:39, 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, Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 7 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altai

Altai (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 complete subset of the

practices for combining terms on disambiguation pages (particularly the third bullet, "Variant spellings"). The "Altay" page already contains all entries which may be referred as either "Altay" or "Altai" (and often as both).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?
); December 15, 2014; 18:22 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Both
  • The Altai Mountains which are the source of the majority of subjects can be romanized either as Altai or as Altay. This seems to be true for all languages involved (Russian, Kazakh, Mongolian and Chinese)
only Altay
  • The Turkish name
only Altai
  • The novel by Wu Ming, a group of Italian authors
  • Altai Inc in
    Computer Associates Int'l, Inc. v. Altai Inc.

Inwind (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The legal case, as it's currently presented, does not really belong in the main section, since it's a
    partial title match, although it would of course be fine under "See also". That leaves exactly one entry on the "Altai" page (the novel) which may not be referred to as "Altay"; the bulk of other entries can be referred to using either spelling. In other words, if both disambigs were to be kept, the only entries not present on both would be the novel (only on "Altai") and the people with the Turkish names (only on "Altay"), resulting in overwhelming duplication of entries. This can easier be resolved by leaving just one page (Altay, to which "Altai" redirects) with three main sections ("can be referred to using the 'Altai' spelling only, the 'Altay' spelling only, or using either spelling"). Would you see that as an acceptable compromise? The alternative is maintaining two nearly identical pages, and that tends to be confusing to both readers and editors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?
    ); December 17, 2014; 16:09 (UTC)
    Regarding the legal case, it is common in copyright circles to refer to it as just Altai (here, for example).
    T
    16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Good to know; thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 18, 2014; 16:31 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Latebird (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I see two possibilities:
    1. A clear split: Russian and Mongolian topics to Altai, Chinese and Turkish topics to Altay etc. according to the relevant naming conventions. "See also" in between.
    2. A full merge: Redirect one to the other
Since many people use different spellings than ours, and the two are derived from the same Mongolian word, I'd prefer the latter. --Latebird (talk) 19:34, 10 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D'Ambrosio

Anthony D'Ambrosio (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--local mentions only DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 20:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 20:40, 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, Mz7 (talk) 22:23, 7 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian-Pakistani

Indian-Pakistani (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 about a common Indian-Pakistani culture, but it is not clear from the article what is "common" there. There are no sources, and no clear explanation on what exactly is the topic of the article. It is a kind of

wp:OR which should be removed from encyclopedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior

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

Unnecessary duplicate of

List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior (United States). I don't see why this is needed. The international channels show their programs on their respective articles. Dcbanners (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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, Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 7 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) 20:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikramjeet Kanwarpal

Bikramjeet Kanwarpal (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)

Actor played character roles but has just 1 source. Fails

WP:NACTOR Derevation (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Derevation (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) --being nominator, you're supposed to favor deletion of article, no need to !vote twice.[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Subject appears to be meeting
    Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:54, 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, Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Just a few sites and blog are not enough. Plus blogs aren't reliable. Actor just known for his minor roles. DerevationGive Me Five 11:56, 8 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 by User:Anthony Appleyard per CSD G6, "Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page". NORTH AMERICA1000 03:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Rains (disambiguation)

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

Utterly unnecessary dab page per

WP:TWODABS. There's already a hatnote in the obvious primary article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and have nominated it for Speedy delete G-6, unnecessary dab page. PamD 12:21, 8 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) 19:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah Lawson

Sabah Lawson (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)

Failed

WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 8 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) - ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Ivanović

Saša Ivanović (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)

Failed

WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 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. This discussion is

closed early
because there is no chance that it will reach a consensus to delete or even merge the article.

Although this deletion discussion is not a vote, the count of opinions currently stands at 74 keep, 24 merge and 14 delete opinions. Under these extraordinarily clear circumstances, an admin could close the discussion with a "delete" outcome only if mandatory reasons for deletion (such as copyright violations) had been advanced. That is not the case; this is rather a discussion about the notability of the slogan independently from the related event, about which people may disagree in good faith. In such cases, the closing admin has very limited leeway to weigh arguments in favor of the one or the other side. Moreover, given the ongoing coverage of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and its consequences, it is unlikely that media interest in the slogan will diminish and that this will cause a significant number of editors to change their minds and advocate deletion.

Because of this, I conclude that there is at this time a solid consensus to keep the article based on what is perceived as its independent notability. This does not preclude later merger proposals and discussions on the article talk page.  Sandstein  20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis Charlie

Je suis Charlie (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:Original research about "free speech". RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

That doesn't make it pass
WP:ADVOCACY of "free speech". "Hands up, don't shoot" has been around enough to be discussed in secondary sources, and also pertains to multiple events. This is a slogan for one event that happened today. Its notability has not been established, independent of the shooting. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If the article is biased toward advocacy, then it should be edited to make it more neutral. If it quickly fades away then I would agree it should be merged into the original article, but for now it is not hurting anything to leave it.
talk) 21:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It is harming Wikipedia, because it is an example of
a dictionary of random political slogans either. RGloucester — ☎ 21:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not harming Wikipedia. Lulz. This is not a "dictionary" type entry and the recentism page is not "anti-recentism". From the
talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's the world in reverse. First show notability, then create an article (or !vote keep). --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple independent sources that discuss Je suis Charlie, GNG is not an obstacle here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC).
There are, but they do not discuss it independently of the shooting itself. Most of them are
commentary pieces that are not usable as RS. Please note the "presumed" bit of the GNG. RGloucester — ☎ 23:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I can't take the reasons behind this proposed deletion very seriously. A lot of talk about
WP:GNG, which for me it passes with flying colors. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 21:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: If the slogan peters out and is not repeated five days from now then it would be difficult to regard it as a "movement" or a "global phenomenon." 129.98.230.131 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that a "phenomenon" or "movement" has managed to come together in less than a day. That's called
WP:CRYSTAL, something we're not. Anyway, I don't see any sources for this "free speech" nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That you don't believe something can be a movement or phenomenon in less than a day is simply your opinion. And again,
talk) 00:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, but this project is based on policy, not based on my or your personal opinion on this matter. If anything, we need more strict enforcement of policy, to stop incidents like this one from occurring. This is not the place for polemics, or for
advocacy of ideas. This is an encylopaedia. It is impossible to determine whether this is an "important issue" without analysis in reliable scholarly sources, which we do not have on the day of this shooting. There is no notability independent of the incident, now, and hence this should be covered in that article, which is not even long. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree 100 percent with XANIA. Give specific reasons why and don't just point to policies that are 6,000 words and don't clearly support the argument.
talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It may be too soon to say whether this slogan *will become* notable, but it's right now it's obviously not. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the attacks. The slogan is searchable, but it is specifically tied to the incident. If it does grow past that a week from now, then we can talk about a separate article, but right now it doesn't need it and overly duplicative of the attack article. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now I'm continuing to follow this hashtag and see if I can find any notability beyond the usual outrage/sympathy for the victims. I've found quite a few articles from journalists who are discussing its significance as "battle cry" against recent trends toward censorship and threats to free speech. I think that adds a secondary perspective beyond who changed their Twitter avatar, etc. Will add to the article.
    talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep For those of you who keep saying the article just has the same info as the
    talk) 00:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's fine, sorry about that. My intention was not to vote multiple times.
    talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting --0x010C (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as the article contains a number of RS that primarily discus the hashtag and surrounding issues (e.g. the efficacy of Twitter-activism), rather than focussing on the shooting itself and only mentioning the hashtag in passing. It Is Me Here t / c 00:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I just saw a huge collage of magazine/newspaper front pages from around the world about the massacre. A few of the covers are just black with the white words, "Je Suis Charlie." There are also more and more photos of demonstrations with people holding the sign with the phrase. The notability seems quite clear and not just a Twitter fad.
    talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Photographs of people with Je suis Charlie inscribed on signs do not indicate notability. Please see
WP:NEO. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I saw
talk) 02:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
We have policies. It is not my fault you are either refusing to read them, or cannot comprehend them. This is an encylopaedia. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Charlie Hebdo shooting. At the moment, "Je suis Charlie" is covered in sources exclusively together with "Charlie Hebdo shooting", not on its own. This phenomenon is notable, and should be covered in Wikipedia, but in the "Charlie Hebdo shooting" article, not in a separate article. If, in the future, it becomes separately notable, a separate article should be (re-)created. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Wait - This is a social phenomenon which most likely has enough long-term notability to have its own article. - Anonimski (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The enormous MSM and activist coverage of this suggests that the tag is here to stay. Such one-offs as Ich bin ein Berliner and You're no Jack Kennedy have survived, and I think this is no different. We can always revisit this if we are shown by history to be mistaken. Ringbark (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too soon to make a decision -- needs time to develop -- keep for now per the policy
    C 13:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Delete and redirect to shootings article. It is just a slogan. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as this is such a major incident that there is a strong possibility that the slogan 'je suis Charlie' will remain notable, and that at some future point younger readers might consult Wikipedia for an explanation of it. AlanD1956 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an enormous social media message which has gone more than just viral, and is definitely notable. Mrnetbean (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)— Mrnetbean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Whether or not the Je suis Charlie mantra becomes a campaign, it already merits inclusion as a social media phenomenon that has quite clearly gripped all of society in the immediate wake of this terrible atrocity. For that reason alone, it meets notability criteria by the bucket load. I'd just like to add that I think the decision to mark as speedy delete sticks in my craw as being incredibly insensitive to those who have lost loved ones in this attack. Mediavalia talk 15:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - I am always an advocate of waiting on these type of things. It hurts nothing leaving this here for a month and seeing whether or not coverage continues. For now the article is certainly got enough coverage to hop over
    WP:GNG. We aren't psychics, we can't say this will not have continued coverage so to delete it now is just causing extra work for people if it does continue, and if it doesn't, then it can be deleted with out hassle (even better if this had never been nominated until some time had passed, so we could know at the AfD if it was actually long term. One thing I hate is people rushing things to AfD). This is especially right now a topic many will be googling, so having it on Wikipedia is good for the website (see the stats here). JTdaleTalk~ 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment Hear, hear! My sentiments entirely. Mediavalia talk 15:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I'm changing my vote from 'for now' because this has gotten ridiculous. The popularity of this thing has exploded over night, and that has in my mind made it eternally notable. The enormous number of tweets is just one thing now. Demonstrations across the planet. The creation of cartoons by some of the worlds most notable cartoonists. The adding of this to some of the worlds most visited websites. Building it into the WHOIS of french websites. Reports from every possible conceivable newspaper and news program. The New York Times, the Herald Sun, Washington Post, the London Times, Times of India, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN. If if is a news publication today, it has reported on this. JTdaleTalk~ 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wait. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable already and likely to be notable in the future as a slogan in future events. Alaney2k (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Alaney stated. Hafspajen (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because is has become a world thing now. Lotje (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the chief complaint is that it's a duplicate of the
    day 16:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The topic was not so notable when the article was first created, but it definitely is now.
    talk) 17:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - By itself it's a non-notable meme. It needs to go in the shooting article.--WaltCip (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any relevant information with the main article on the shootings. (Alternatively, I would support the creation of an article about the international reaction to the shootings.) This is nothing more than a 'hashtag' created in response to an important event, with no apparent significance of its own. How will this slogan/image have any significant impact?-RHM22 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, having waited to see the developments, I believe the slogan and associations with it have easily crossed the threshold of notability. The body of explanation required would be too long for the shootings page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - It seems clear that this has already become notable. EastTN (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable phrase for the defense of free speech, while their messages are not identical, their social media use could be compared to #illridewithyou, but x3 in usage. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure exactly what your rationale is for making the comparison, but 'illridewithyou' is currently nestled in the
      2014 Sydney hostage crisis article, as part of the 'Reactions' section.-RHM22 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Ah yes; I don't necessarily agree with that rationale, but I understand what you mean.-RHM22 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I voted delete yesterday, but it is apparent that there will be no consensus to delete. I recommend an admin speedy close this as hopelessly no-consensus for the time being. It doesn't make sense to have deletion tags on the article when things are too heated.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be speedily closed per
    WP:SK
    , "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". If it's left open, then it should be closed as Keep as the notability of the topic is extensive. Here's a selection of headlines:
  1. "Thousands chant 'je suis Charlie' at Fed Square" — The Age
  2. "'Je suis Charlie' goes global" — Al Jazeera
  3. "Je suis Charlie! The cry of defiance" — Daily Mail
  4. "'Je suis Charlie' trends as people refuse to be silenced by Charlie Hebdo gunmen" — Daily Mirror
  5. "Vigils across Europe declare 'We are Charlie'" — Financial Times
  6. "Stand up for press freedom by wearing a 'Je suis Charlie' T-shirt" — The Guardian
  7. "#JeSuisCharlie hashtag used across the world to show solidarity with Charlie Hebdo shooting victims" — The Independent
  8. "#JeSuisCharlie Social media shows support for satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo" — Metro
  9. "‘Je Suis Charlie’ message unites the globe after Paris attack" — New York Post
  10. "'Je Suis Charlie' Message Goes Viral After Paris Attack" — New York Times
Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't come close to being a speedy keep. There's nothing to suggest that RGloucester created this to solve a dispute, and even if he had, this would probably still be a a valid AfD anyway. That said, this will probably be closed without consensus, based on its current state.-RHM22 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination tells us plainly that the AFD was started, "since my unilateral merge was reversed". The nominator failed to discuss the matter at the article's talk page and didn't start a proper merge request per
    Jimbo had to step in to revert another blatant abuse of process recently. Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The nominator was explaining that first he did a unilateral merge, then seeing that there was not a clear consensus opened a discussion instead. Both the merge and nomination were for the same reasons, which he outlines in his comment. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. This topic is related to the shooting, and belongs as a properly written section within that article rather than a bloated and unnecessary child article. Resolute 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The
    WP:SIZE, this page is fine and it's the other one which needs attention. Andrew D. (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge: to Charlie Hebdo shooting there will obviously be public demonstrations over this sort of tragedies, having a hashtag associated with it is not particularly notable. Maybe if there were an article called "Reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting" it would get a bigger mention. Loganmac (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may actually be a good compromise solution, since one key objection raised to this article's existence is that it doesn't exist as a standalone topic. Assuming there's enough material for two articles, the "X" / "Reactions to X" distinction is far more reasonable (and has better precedent) than "X" / "Some Twitter slogan about X". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted, there is an article on Hands up, don't shoot. That would seem to be an appropriate precedent for this one. EastTN (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are also supposed to give a concrete reason. This is a discussion, not voting. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, for the reason that the subject stands alone. -markS (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.128.228 (talk) [reply]

Yes, Hafspajen, definitely developping, with a recognition now far exceeding the French borders. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Event recent, this slogan is clearly a symbol of this historical moment and of the emotion shared in the whole world. It should have its own article for being a symbol of the freedom of speech and not only a reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Pymouss Let's talk 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    WP:RECENTISM. Modest Genius talk 00:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge or delete there really hasn't been any time to establish any significance of this phrase as anything other than a small part of the attacks. Unless this phrase becomes something referred back to, or needs extensive coverage, it doesn't need to be an article. HalfHat 01:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea would be to trim out a lot of the fluff when merging, condensing it to one or two paragraphs in a "Reactions" section. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what an "air quote" is. I believe I used what are known as "inverted commas", which are used when one is quoting the words of others, as I was doing here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RGloucester here. What does any of that have to do with Wikipedia? We cover notable people, things and events, not things that are nice or that we agree with. Besides, this slogan would still be covered in the article, or (preferably to me) in a 'reactions' article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you want to prove it is notable? It has been reported about by nearly every newspaper on Earth. It has been added to some of the worlds largest websites, built into the structure of French WHOIS, used as a slogan by thousands in physical protests, tweeted 3.4 million times. If this isn't notable, what is? JTdaleTalk~ 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that it was "not notable". I said that it was not notable apart from the shootings themselves, as an independent object, and hence should be covered in that article. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself agreeing with WaltCip on the Scare quotes. It easily comes across as condescending, and whether it is as per intention is irrelevant to the fact that it should not belong in a civilized discussion. xertnevnI (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is more beneficial to the other page to have this text on a separate page so it doesn't detract from the article about the event itself. There seems to be enough reliable sources to indicate that the slogan itself is notable. Posts on this page by others have indicated that they have already found the Je Suis Charlie page useful as a place for information. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Now. There is potential that this will blow over quickly, in which case merging with the Charlie Hebdo Shooting may make good sense, but as the term is being frequently trended and searched right now, we should keep the wiki up for those who will reference it from a web search. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Obviously notable phrase. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a notable protest movement in itself nor a wider campaign on press freedom, but solely part of the international reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. It should be merged back into the page for that shooting. Zcbeaton (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a notable protest movement... This may not be a protest movement, but this is something that is noted by EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THIS PLANET!. Maybe not by a newspaper run by Boko Harem, but everybody else has covered this meme. Really everyone running a newspaper, in every country! How much more notability do you want?
      WP:GNG clearly states that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Your vote is also self-contradicting, because you bolded the "Delete" word, but then supported merging instead (and this forum is really not for resolving disputed merges.) jni (delete)...just not interested 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep dank article 79.67.253.38 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet slang, it means "awesome article". w.carter-Talk 23:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we have an article about this, surely we should also have something about
    talk) 22:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Surely a redirect would do fine for that. HalfHat 02:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It seems to me that the term has got a pretty significant amount coverage. Enough that it would seem to pass
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; we do have a number of similar articles covering famous phrases (e.g. Hands up, don't shoot, The lady's not for turning). NickCT (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – In the time that this AfD has opened, this has gained enough notability and news coverage on its own. Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now covered in depth, the article passes notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trout for the nominator. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Such an obvious keep. This saying isn't going anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.36.40 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — 96.48.36.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Even if this slogan should disappear from media in a few weeks, it has still had a significant impact and coverage during the CHS to be mentioned somewhere in the WP. w.carter-Talk 10:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A number of people have made statements like "This is not a notable protest movement in itself nor a wider campaign on press freedom..." I came to the page because the slogan is all over Flickr. There are definitely more than 1,000 photos tagged with "JeSuisCharlie". That's a lot. See https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=jesuischarlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony999 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Tony999 (talk[reply]
  • Keep else wait I think it is already apparent that Je Suis Charlie has taken a life of its own, far bigger than the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and has become a strong statement in favor of freedom of speech. If people are not yet convinced then perhaps we should wait, but for me it already passes
    WP:GNG. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge: to Terrorism, along with Boston Strong, into a new Anti-Terrorism Slogans sub-section under Responses. No matter how many times this slogan is displayed or recited, senseless murderers will not find a clue.
  • Keep It has certainly become very notable indeed. The sheer number of responses here alone show how well known it is.Jeppiz (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep RGloucester, I'd recommend you to take a breather and just accept that many Wikipedia policies go out the window with these types of slogans. Don't lose any sleep over it and just allow the exceptions. The article doesn't need any reason for inclusion other than the fact that it's a popular slogan. It's an easy vote for keep. It's catchy, it's cool, and people like it. Forget
    WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There's simply no need to follow any encyclopedic guidelines when this many people overwhelmingly vote for inclusion. It stays and that's it. Zup326 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Zup326: AfD is not a vote. The results of AfDs are based on policy-based arguments, not simple votes and rationales of "it's cool". --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why give this one person a hard time? The delete votes aren't "policy-based arguments" either, so why aren't you lecturing them? Everyking (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Everyking: I commented on this user's !vote because they we're trying to lecture others. And by the way, I want the article kept too. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a bizarre !vote. Zup326 seems to suggest that the article shouldn't be kept per policy, essentially agreeing with the rationale for deletion, but the !vote is a 'strong keep' because many people want to keep it? AmaryllisGardener is right to point out the flaws in that !vote, if for no other reason than to inform new editors that things like that aren't taken into consideration in an AfD.-RHM22 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what is also policy?
WP:IAR. JTdaleTalk~ 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • keep Per others--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ridiculous nomination and ridiculous discussion, even the nom seems to want to keep both the content and the name as a redirect, and we seem to have strong consensus that both should be kept. So that's a merge, not a deletion, and always was. I'd even oppose a merge, good topic and plenty of material, but to be even discussing this on AfD when deletion has no rationale and no support is ridiculous. No other word for it. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go with merge/redirect per Masem, Resolute, and RHM22. Wait a month or two, and if it's still getting coverage independent of the attacks we can spin it back out. ansh666 06:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This topic makes little sense without the background of the attack itself. So the content is better in that article. BTW, the votes for Merge and Delete are invalid and should be treated as just merge, while Merge and Redirect is pointless since redirecting is part of merging Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per rationale by the nominator. Its span is just reaction of the shooting and have not made any significance in worldwide press, countries. We do not have articles on "I am Malala" or "I'llridewithyou" and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Iniciativass (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What another ridiculous attempt to delete a perfectly good article. This is big enough to have it's own separate article. The information is relevant and important to anyone interested in researching on the shootings now and later on.--Joey (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes I do wonder about the mentality of people who seriously want this deleted. I feel like John MceEnroe "
      you cannot be serious?"... --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete/Redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. The term has been cited in recent media but makes no sense without the attack. Indiuser (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. I would never have found it defined otherwise. 208.163.245.101 (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)— 208.163.245.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. The article sheds light on an aspect entirely different from the shootings themselves. Shashwat986 → talk 12:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. With a FFS thrown in for good measure. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I was originaly going to vote for a merge when I saw that
    Yes We Can (slogan) but then I came upon Drill, baby, drill. This deletion request is ridiculous. Many slogans have their own pages on wikipedia and this is a notable, significant slogan. If we delete this one we must delete all of them.--76.111.48.47 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)— 76.111.48.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
  • Keep. This is a world movement, with significant coverage from sources. --FocalPoint (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. In fact I am shocked that Wikipedia is considering deleting. Je Suis Charlie is the most important development to happen in Europe since at least 1987. It is historical. Users should be able to find out about the movement simply by inputting these words. Have some pity for your users! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmeyer1884 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Cmeyer1884 (talk[reply]
  • I am strongly against deletion of the article. Not because of sympathy and so on but because it seems that "Je suis Charlie" has quickly become a slogan of solidarity, that is, a culturally important phenomenon. I even dare to presume that in the case of future attacks "Je suis X" or "I am X" ("X" being the name of the attacked organization, institution or group) would emerge again. Forms of solidarity can be a field of historical, political, cultural, and psychological interest - and study. 93.152.163.41 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)— 93.152.163.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a historical symbol of unity for freedom in speech and just Europe. 89.191.106.114 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note there's another keep on the talk page. [[4]] Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously meets GNG. Sam Sing! 20:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure etc

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Je suis Charlie#Procedure etc. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defiance cycle ride

Defiance cycle ride (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)

Don't see this meeting

WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

See Talk Page. Canol (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell, the talk page is empty. Do you plan to contest??Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Defiance_cycle_ride — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canol (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Canol: that is not the appropriate place to contest a deletion. Do so on the article's talk page. Qxukhgiels (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent coverage showing up on Google when I looked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my sweep of British media did not come up with any sources, but I am willing to change my view if sources can be found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage at a quick look. ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:55, 14 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 all. (Note: This nom was malformed in that an AfD tag was placed only on the article named in the heading; the similar articles included in the nom were not individually tagged. Nevertheless, I see no point in fixing the problem and relisting again—the articles all deal with particular numbered buses owned by the same transit line, and the consensus for deletion seems clear enough. Call it

IAR.) Deor (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Unitrans 4528–4535

Unitrans 4528–4535 (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)

More bus related memorabilia from Unitrans. I also nominate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitrans_4123%E2%80%934127
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitrans_2820%E2%80%932822
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitrans_4916%E2%80%934919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitrans_4615%E2%80%934618
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitrans_4507%E2%80%934508
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitrans_3901%E2%80%933905
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitrans_4063%E2%80%934067

Thanks

talk 09:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • These should probably be deleted or at least removed from article namespace as
    indiscriminate information; some of the references and possibly information in the articles may be suitable for the Unitrans article but the titles wouldn't be suitable as redirects. Peter James (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge all into Unitrans; the contents of all eight articles would be best served by a section in Unitrans.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to indicate that any of these individual buses is notable; these aren't routes but physical buses. Are we going to profile each uber car and driver, too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:02, 7 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. Deor (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Zaffar

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

Not seems notable to warrant page. Saqib (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Surprisingly the only source I've found is [5] which isn't all that ideal, Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability I'll have to say delete. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 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 withdrawn by nom, going for speedy Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbs of the Republic of Macedonia

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

far too broad a topic, and includes a list of redlinked people Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lists like this can, of course, be limited to those with articles only, obviating the problem of breadth. However it's worth noting that the exact same list already appears in
Serbs in the Republic of Macedonia so it isn't particularly necessary for it to also exist as a standalone article. Count me as delete for now unless a dedicated user comes along with special plans for this list. Keresaspa (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw Good find - I'm withdrawing my nomination and instead putting a Speedy on it. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to

The Grace (band). Of note is that the delete !vote states that "Any information in this article should be incorporated into The Grace, if it hasn't already been". Much of the content is not in the merge target. The nominator seconded merging to this target in the discussion, and a third user !voted to merge. NORTH AMERICA1000 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dana & Sunday

Dana & Sunday (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. Random86 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dana & Sunday are the two remaining members of
The Grace (band). They are still The Grace, not a new group. The Grace itself is notable and were quite popular in the mid-2000s, before the onslaught of 1000s of new idol groups began. Any information in this article should be incorporated into The Grace, if it hasn't already been. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I somehow missed the fact that they are a subgroup. I second merging this into
The Grace (band). --Random86 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:40, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. counties named after plants

List of U.S. counties named after plants (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)

Since the List of U.S. counties named after animals was just Afd'd out of existence, this one should be too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting, but really a trivial list. The names of counties, and the names of plant species, are not trivial. Putting them together like this is. You could make up this kind of list about almost anything. For instance, Songs named after body parts: "Piece of my heart", "I only have eyes for you", etc. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How about "Foot Loose" or "I like Big Butts" Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful. I might decide to start the article. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no policy reasons given for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, one AfD has less than zero effect on another unless they are grouped together or the AfD created a Wikipedia wide policy consensus (something which rarely happens and hasn't happened here). It's always possible the other AfD was in error. Please state policy, please. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:N issues rather than taking the result of that AfD to have implications for this. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:57, 8 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. Of note is that the !vote stating "good book title, but bas article title" was not considered for this close, because it does not provide a guideline or policy based rationale for deletion. NORTH AMERICA1000 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kittens Are Assholes

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

Fails

talk 18:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 18:50, 7 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. Let's close this, if only for a very practical reason: I have never seen such a division in an AfD, of content contributors, FA writers and reviewers, and other experienced editors on both sides. There is no way in which this is going to close as anything but "no consensus", unless one throws a supervote into the mix.

Having said that, a few more remarks. One SPI is brought up; a related one is

WP:FAR has been suggested as a possible venue, and I agree that a careful review of the article, its sourcing, and perhaps its FA status is a good first stop. If the community agrees, for instance, that the article is not an FA, then that will make for a more streamlined deletion discusison.

In short, I'm closing this as No Consensus, without prejudice toward renonimation, and I thank you all for your input. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

2012 tour of She Has a Name

2012 tour of She Has a Name (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 single tour of a regional dramatic production. It eludes me why this page should exist at all, as it appears to be promotional in bent. Nominated for deletion per WP:N and WP:NOT Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there is another article, curated exclusively by the same editor as this one, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_response_to_She_Has_a_Name. Said article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Wikipedia's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Should the critical response page be nominated for deletion separately?Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • With somewhat wider discussion here, I want to clarify my comments a bit. There are two reasons, in general, why subtopics get their own pages. First, if the core topic is too long, sections can be spun out to their own pages out of readability concerns. Second, if the subtopic is the subject of independent coverage such that it meets notability criteria on its own, then it warrants a page from first principles. When neither are true, we don't; that's part of what is implied by "notability is not inherited". Neither of these is true here. The core article is not too long to exist as a single topic—or, at least, would not be so if pared down appropriately. And the 2012 tour is not by any stretch of the imagination a separate topic from the play itself. Go ahead, look at the sources in the article. The reviews of the 2012 showings never talk about how these 2012 productions are somehow different from the (much more limited) 2011 productions. They are simply reviews of the play, written in the various (mostly local) newspapers where it was shown during that year.
This got through FA (with considerably difficulty, I'll note; it passed on the 3rd nomination, with what is not, historically-speaking, a well-attended discussion) because on its face, it's the sort of thing FAC encourages: exhaustively researched and with oodles of references. I know; I review at FAC when my schedule permits, and try my best to write for it as well. But FAC is poorly equipped to deal with structural questions such as should this article have existed in the first place. It's tooth fairy science. There's no separate topic here; there never was. Rather, this (and the critical reception article) are an effort to spread the topic of one small, mostly regionally-performed piece of fringe theater into a broader topic. A substantial amount of the content is duplicated between the three articles, as are a substantial number of the references, and for good reason: there should only be one topic here to begin with. Go read the parent article, and pretend there weren't "See also" links to its two subtopics whatsoever. There's nothing there that wants for comprehensiveness, nothing that should be merged in, even if some could be. And I'd be surprised if more than a handful of ultra-local references weren't already there as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all of those sources are telling me that, while at first glance seeming like too much, it's just right for the amount of coverage. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All touring productions of all plays always generate at least this much coverage. This one is in no way special in that regard. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could easily be an argument for aicles like this for all touring productins of all plays. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But a poor one. With vanishingly few exceptions (of which this article contains none), reviews, criticism, and commentary are not about the individual productions on their merits, but about the play itself. Even the most famous, most widely-performed modern stage performances such as
routine. That's most certainly true of regionally-performed Canadian fringe theater. It was performed in 2011. It was performed other places in 2012. All of that is part of the topic of the play, not a thing unto itself. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I was only pointing out the fallacy in the argument:
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Whether the article itself deserves to exist should be judged on its own merits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The volume of spinoff content about his works, regardless of whether it's warranted or excessive, has no bearing on whether his main BLP meets "good article" standards or not — so the quality assessments of that article are in no way affected by questions about whether this related but distinct spinoff article warrants inclusion or not. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Investigate The creator of this article Neelix, an editor with nine years experience and many articles to his name, retired a week ago stating he was 'the target of a very high level of trolling'. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns where he claims to be the 'subject of an attack'. It should be investigated if this AfD is not part of that alleged attack, certainly in light of the nominators editing record. It is a new account who started of last week by culling the content of another article which Neelix created (see 1, also note the preceding similar content culling by another newly created account Yaktaur). It has the hallmarks of sockpuppetry. --Wolbo (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's little doubt that the nominator is marginal at best; however, they do have an extremely valid point here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect I read this article, and checked out some of the references. It's puffed up and has a taint of coatrack.→StaniStani 02:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to Wikipedia:Featured article review. I am skeptical that this article should exist in the first place, as the tour should normally be covered only as part of the play's article; however, it doesn't seem appropriate to me for an article to go from featured article status to being deleted directly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of FAR is to determine if an article no longer meets the FA criteria, not to determine if it should exist at all. If the consensus here is keep, the article is eligible to remain an FA. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my recommendation to Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. However, if the article is kept, I think it should be sent to
    WP:FAR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I respect your comment; you are right, many sources are solely about the show, however I did find many (ten or more) sources that verify the notability of the tour. FYI, I wish to say that I respect the editors who recognize this article as FA, that I myself am not interested in this featured/good topic, and that regarding Neelix, he and I have crossed swords before and so I am not a fanboy, but I do respect him and trust him as a scholar. I still believe the article can exist on its own and as part of a well-researched topic. I hope someone can investigate the motivations of the nominator. Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks. John Bailey Owen (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (aka Johnnydowns)[reply]
  • At least you've bothered to go beyond "Keep, it's an FA therefore it's fine" Prhartcom, which several people haven't. I strongly disagree with your interpretation here, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With regards to the nominator, no evidence of actual sockpuppetry was presented at that SPI, and it was indeed archived as such. I agree with many people that the nominator is suspicious (and have said so), but I don't think throwing around the "sock" allegation as a reason to keep this is helpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The archived SPI did not mention this nominator (or Yaktaur) and was closed because Neelix retired. I just want to make sure we do not allow a sockpuppet to abuse an AfD (and other activities) in order to wikihound an experienced and productive editor into retirement. For the record, I do not know Neelix and as far as I know have had no interactions with him.--Wolbo (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OWN and asked for an explanation for this edit to She Has a Name.[7] He retired on 7 January,[8] though maybe he is taking a wikibreak as suggested. So please don't be quick to blame sockpuppets. EChastain (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Keep - well writen ...all looks fine. -- Moxy (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no way this merits a standalone article. Can't believe we're even discussing such a thing. Puffed up unnecesary spinoff from puffed up article. 2015 tour of Hamlet, anyone? Get a grip. Article created and massaged by user devoted to the play. Puff. Not a valid wikipedia article in any way, shape or form.Begoon talk 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At worst — and I mean at very worst — this is over-the-top fanboy coverage of a more or less ordinary event in popular culture. This is pretty much descriptive of about half of the content of Wikipedia... It's actually a nice presentation of a regional theatre tour, a topic that passes GNG. That this article has been challenged is far more concerning to me than the fact that this article exists. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is absurd to think that 2 whole spinoff articles are warranted for such a minor play, especially when all the content on this page is summarized in a relatively more reasonable/restrained manner on the main article for the play itself. Even a merge isn't necessary since the 3 pages repeat each other so much, there's tons of overlap and what doesn't overlap is overly verbose hype language. There's just no need for this; it would be excessive even when applied to all but the few most famous and extensively covered works of literature or theater in history, and it's even more so when applied to such a fringe play. This is a total puff piece created by an editor who seems to have a history of creating similarly puffed-up, promotional features for his favorite celebrities, causes, and pieces of entertainment. Arguing that other content on Wikipedia is fanboy-created puff seems like an argument to delete other similar articles, not a reason to keep this one.Wobzrem (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the number of sources has been cited several times as evidence that the article should be kept, but keep in mind that most of the sources are very small local newspapers, and any regional production is likely to get similar amounts of coverage on that scale. We are not talking about widespread media coverage at a national or international level, or a larger cultural impact. We are talking about local newspapers covering what was likely the only theatrical production running in their various small towns at any given time - of course these tiny newspapers covered this play! Does this mean there should be an article for each yearly tour of every regional production of every play ever?Wobzrem (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Softlavender. Well referenced, feature article. Given its length and the length of the main article, appropriately split off from the main article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-referenced featured article. Easily passes
    WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. The sole criterion is WP:GNG. It passes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Personal attacks will not advance your case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge any relevant bits to parent article. FA status does not relate to notability. I think Squeamish Ossifrage makes the most salient points about how this article gives undue weight to a marginal aspect of an otherwise notable topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whatever we do, please 'do not merge. The She Has a Name article is already balanced. Merging further information from this one would just skew that. No need to destroy two articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious: what do you mean by "balanced"? I fail to see how merging would what essentially be a very small amount of information (when the overlap is discarded) would "destroy two articles". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Basically everything has been covered by users smarter than myself, but I wanted to add a few things. Basically the only arguments in its favor revolve entirely around the fact that it is well sourced. I agree that the sourcing is meticulous and clearly required lots of research and hard work. This isn't being debated, and I do understand the reluctance to delete an article that someone clearly put a lot of time and effort into. I was actually initially leaning towards "keep" on that basis alone when I stumbled onto this discussion. However, the issue is far more structural and concerns whether or not this article adds information necessary to understand the original article, or adds information that is deserving of its own article. As for the former, the original article is incredibly detailed and informative and conveys more than enough information to provide a reader with clear understanding of both the initial 2011 and later 2012 performances of the play. Anyone wishing to learn about "She Has a Name" will be able to walk away from the original article fully informed without leaving any major gaps in knowledge left open. As for the latter, is the article necessary on its own because it is a significant topic in its own right, this is largely self-evident and has been explained fairly well by others. The fact that the article largely repeats large sections of "She Has a Name" by itself refutes the argument that this subject is necessary or notable in a vacuum. It is highly unlikely that a reader would search for this article without first reading the original, and as discussed, the original covers the information sufficiently and thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, straightforwardly meets the GNG. Anyone is welcome to restructure the articles as desired outside of this process, via talk page consensus, but given the size of the pages relative to each other this seems like a reasonable structure - this level of detail would be oppressive in the main article. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I think the major issue is that the level of detail is unnecessary as the initial article already covers the relevant information. Again, I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am kind of confused as to why most of the debate here seems to not be defending the content of the article in defending its existence but just the number of sources. It seems like the length and detail are just kind of being accepted on their face rather than being explored more deeply. Actually reading both articles back to back it seems like most of the information is repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak delete or merge pretty much as per Bearcat above. There seems to me to be some good reason to think that we need to establish notability guidelines for specific performances of dramatic works which receive regular multiple performances, and I would think that from what I can see this would probably not pass them. I acknowledge the article, as it stands, is not bad, but at least borders on a form of theatrical fancruft. It would seem to me, perhaps, to make sense to have, if people wanted them, a separate article from the main article on a play or similar for the various outstanding performances of that play, but hopefully only one or two such for all performances. Otherwise, like others have mentioned above, we might have somewhere in the vicinity of several thousand articles on the various stage performances of Hamlet alone, and I cannot imagine that there is really that much encyclopedic material about even that topic, one of the most written about theatrical works ever, to merit such coverage. For performances which do receive significant enough non-local or non-regional coverage to establish general notability, however, like maybe the Richard Chamberlain Hallmark Hall of Fame version of Hamlet and other widely discussed versions, that would be different. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 16 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) 19:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Reds

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

Article is non-notable. Article Quality is poor. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please be
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've tagged this with the "not a vote" tag since your comment gives off the impression that there may be people coming in to vote or otherwise make unproductive comments.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: New sources given. Could save article, need additional discussion, Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the sources given above, few look like they'd really be usable:
New sources
  1. [15] This is a routine database type listing. It looks like it's been written by someone involved with the mod in the first place. None of the reviews on the page are usable since those can be written by anyone, meaning zero editorial oversight. There's really nothing on this page that can show notability. It could be used to back up trivial details but not show notability.
  2. [16] This one is kind of iffy. It's an interview, but the website doesn't really show whether it was an interview held by the site, what (if any) type of editorial oversight they have, and so on. There really isn't much on there that shows how verifiable the site is, so I don't know that this would pass muster at
    WP:RS/N
    if I were to post it there.
  3. [17] This one is better since
    bit-tech is far better known, but the issue here is that this is pretty brief when it comes down to it. The mod is briefly mentioned as taking third place in a contest held by Mod DB
    and typically awards only give notability if they win the top prize.
  4. [18] This one doesn't even mention the mod in the article. It's mentioned in the comments but not the article itself.
  5. [19] The issue with this one is that while GameStar is a known site, this appears to be a review by a random user as opposed to a staff member, since the translated headline for the page reads that these are reader reviews for the mod. This means that any user/reader can come on and write a review for the mod, akin to how anyone could say, go on to Goodreads and review a book or go to Amazon or IMDb and review a movie.
  6. [20] The problem with this is that ultimately this is only a brief mention of the game in a list of other games. It's very briefly mentioned and the description given looks like it was probably taken from a press release or official writeup for the game. This would be considered a routine mention at best (meaning it can't give notability) since lists like these are typically made from the press releases/requests that are sent to the website in general. This isn't really like one of those lists that give a little more detail and mark the list as "best of 2014/fest/etc".
The only two that look remotely usable are the bit-tech and Command and Conquer articles and even then I don't really think that either would really be the type of article that would really give notability.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • That's not really "coverage", it's just Polygon posting the top 10 list of ModDB, and it was on it. That's about as brief of a passing mention as possible... Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's why I said it should be redirected. I'm alright with deletion, but it seems like this could be a useful redirect based on its popularity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tokyogirl79's analysis of the sources I provided. Could also be redirected or merged, but in any case it doesn't look suitable for its own article.
    39 03:43, 15 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. Deor (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russell J. Berkowitz

Russell J. Berkowitz (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)

Vanity article about lawyer of doubtful notability. I suspect paid editing here, since somebody has repeatedly tried to create an article about the non-notable charitable organisation connected with his law firm. TheLongTone (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. Borders on promotional.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:32, 16 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 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saurus (programming language)

Saurus (programming language) (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by

WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful. Googling turned up absolutely nothing. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – According to the GitHub official site, "Saurus is under heavy development and is not currently suitable for real-life software development." Programming languages normally have to be used by someone other than their creators.

WP:TOOSOON. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It seems no one has used this language or had commentary on it. Delete as non-notable.

talk) 14:55, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of subjects taught for bachelor of technology in Civil

List of subjects taught for bachelor of technology in Civil (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)

Wikipedia is not a place to list the subjects taught in a bachelor's degree for a certain discipline, especially when this can change from university to university. Graham87 15:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects does not change from university to university but the time at which the particular subject is taught may change. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for such school-specific minutia. Although I heartily approve of degrees in being Civil. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these subjects could certainly be different from school to school, and even country to country. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subjects are not so limited with one entity like this article seem to be showing. SamuelDay1 (talk) 17:44, 13 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 and cleanup (non-admin closure) - ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moladi

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

Article is primarily an advertisement and not of a notable company. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 16:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)9[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:23, 7 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) - ƬheStrikeΣagle 19:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ingvar Ambjørnsen

Ingvar Ambjørnsen (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 blp has a single reference. It was tagged for being under-referenced nearly 5 years ago, without any work being done to improve the references. Onel5969 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 13:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 13:32, 7 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. Deor (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent's Genesius Evans

Vincent's Genesius Evans (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 martial artist - does not meet

WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 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

A Pink. Any information worth merging to the main article is still available in the article histories. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Park Cho-rong

Park Cho-rong (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)

Person is not independently notable. Please redirect to the group,

A Pink. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Son Na-eun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kim Nam-joo (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh Ha-young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yoon Bo-mi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hong Yoo-kyung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. — Revi 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion below, I think we can keep. — Revi 04:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Son Naeun, I disagree with the removal because based on
WP:ENT
, she is notable enough to have her own page. She has notable individual activities such as main cast in variety show, lead actress in Music videos and Dramas. Beside that, she also chosen as a model for couple of brand and won award as "Star of the Year" for her variety show and nominated for "Best new actress" for her drama.
Moreover, Will this deletion applied to all individual group member of other Kpop group too? For example Girl's generation, Girl's Day, EXO etc. i still saw their individual member page even though some of them have similar individual activities with Apink members. For those member who have less notable individual activities, maybe can we do something like this? [27] --Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sonflower0210. --
talk) 10:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I personally think all the nominated pages can be deleted, except Son Na-eun, who looks quite enciclopedic. --Chiya92 15:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not a technical WP valid reason, but please note the 7 countries/languages which have listed her. This is slightly outside the usual Kpop PR machine context. Mild keep-Augustabreeze (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the issue with many of these articles is that they use sources like Allkpop which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. They have a disclaimer that states: "Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims".... It's possible to replace such sources with legit ones but it will take time and a lot of effort from a Korean member who can understand the Korean articles. I think with proper sourcing the solo pages would follow
    WP:N but a list page may make more sense for now. SKS (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • IMDB link added. I now formally alter position to keep. -Augustabreeze (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Augustabreeze, I don't know to which article you added something or which one you are proposing to keep. In addition, IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and it certainly does not add the kind of in-depth discussion required by our notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, I am cognisant that project is under regular assault by the Kpop publishing machine. However, I have added yet another mainstream link. There is Korean Herald coverage on this actress, as well as the Maeil Broadcasting Network which is a nationwide television network in SK. This is not an indie artist struggling to get free publicity. This is a known face/name in SK, and the Portuguese and French have also written articles about her--technically not a WP valid reason, but evidence of international reputation. Brazil knows this woman. It is not a 19 teen year old doing half an hour of self-released youtube a day. With addition of MBN coverage, I reiterate keep. Thank you-Augustabreeze (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- For Yoon Bomi and Park Chorong, I would think that the pages should be kept because they've done enough individual activities (Chorong has acted on quite a few dramas and Bomi has been an MC and member of many variety shows). Moreover, they will most likely continue doing more so I think it would only make sense to keep their pages. - Therealdeepi (talk)
    • For all AfD readers, please note that the above comment is a technical keep. Thank you, -Augustabreeze (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any passing admin (Northamerica1000, you around?), please close this--I withdraw. We got comments that don't clearly indicate who should be kept and who shouldn't, and we got Augustabreeze dictating how someone else's comment should be read, as if they were a mind reader. I'll take care of them individually. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I support redirecting these to
    A Pink, except Son Na-eun who may be notable. --Random86 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn, but the discussion has received some !votes for redirection, so a speedy keep close doesn't quite qualify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Park Cho-rong and Son Na-eun. They are notable enough to remain having an article. Rongderp (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except possibly Son Na-eun. All others have no notability outside A Pink. A few cameos and visits to variety shows does not equal notability. Son Na-eun was nominated for some legit acting awards and won some for variety show work. So she might pass the notability test. The awards are referenced to allkpop, but could possibly be confirmed on the award website for accuracy. But is an award for 'We Got Married' really notable? Was that award covered in any reliable sources outside of the awards' own website and gossip sites? If not, then it's not enough to establish notability. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterate keep; Chosun Ilbo coverage; independent feature-length film movie 2009 / imdb.com; Park Cho-rong is an independent actress, a subject independently without any other A Cube members of media coverage. AfD is not a vote and PCR passes
    WP:MUSIC notability guidelines including article 12, article 1, etc etc etc. A total of FIVE national-level newspapers or broadcast channels independently covering her without any reference or pictures of other A Cube members. -Augustabreeze (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete (all) as non-notable. --
    Ping when replying 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Again again and again and again again and again. AfD is not a vote. AfD is not a vote. You must specifically cite WP process regulations contradicting last known commentary if reversing on the consensus. Thank you. Please also see The Caraway Group ongoing AfD process breakdown. AfD readers please note that many of the Delete comments above are new accounts/ possible socks. -08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustabreeze (talk • contribs)
    • Augustabreeze, I'm not sure why you are so worked up over this. None of the accounts that have posted here look suspicious to me. --Random86 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 86, [user] does nothing but vote deletes and has all of 7 edits, zero content contribution. The Caraway Group has also degenerated into a "horse-racing" contest where the closing admin just counted "2 deletes, 1 keep" okay it's finished. AfD is not a vote. It is about confirmation of two independent national-level media sources. Thanks eight six -08:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustabreeze (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect Kim Nam-joo (singer), Oh Ha-young, Hong Yoo-kyung these people do not have solo activities which are independently notable of the group. Yookyung is completely dependent on Apink for her notability because she is no longer in the entertainment industry. Naeun definitely does, Bomi has had quite a few long-term mc gigs and I'm undecided on Chorong Asdklf; (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Son Na-eun, Yoon Bomi and Park Cho-rong. For Naeun, I have mention the reasons above.
For
WP:ENT. I'm not too sure about the other 2 members but this is their individual activities, Namjoo had done two other song collaboration beside released a song with Bomi. Hayoung was a lead actress for two music videos and also have released a song collaboration with other artist. --Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:57, 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, Randykitty (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all no notability outside the group. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - as above, not independently notable. Neutralitytalk 03:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - No credible indication of notability to the point of making her suitable for a stand alone article. Bellerophon talk to me 18:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @
WP:COMPOSER. Kindly review my two separate explanation about it. Thank you so much --Sonflower0210 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Because their articles speak for themselves. Outside of the band, their contributions to entertainment do not rise beyond the level of trivia. Terms like "appearance", "cameo" and "guest co-MC" are analogous with trivia. Bellerophon talk to me 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellerophon: Some of them started their individual acting career as a cameo but have since then moved to bigger role.
- For
WP:ENT
, she's notable enough.
- For
WP:ENT
.
- For
WP:ENT, I think her individual activities are not trivial and she is notable enough to have her own page.--Sonflower0210 (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You have defeated your own argument: they have all only been cast as "supporting" or otherwise minor roles in films, TV or productions. Park's slightly more important role in Plus Nine Boys does not rise to the 'significant roles in multiple notable films or other productions' required by
WP:COMPOSER makes it quite clear that a person who scrapes by as a composer but otherwise lacks enough notability or reliable sources to write a detailed biographical article should be merged and redirected to the parent/most relevant article. Your arguments for keeping these articles are writ large in this AfD, I do not support them because I believe your interpretation of the relevant policies is flawed. Quit filibustering please. Bellerophon talk to me 18:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I never said "they have all only been cast as "supporting", I said they got some supporting and main roles. Also Supporting roles here is not minor roles or cameo but someone who's carry significant roles but not necessarily the lead actress. Isn't it the definition of Supporting actor? For example, Lupita Nyong'o got award "Best supporting actress" for "12 Years a Slave". She's not the lead actress because there are several major roles in that movie but it was a significant role.
Moreover, Son Naeun role in
WP:ENT
. As for Park Chorong, beside her lead role in Nine boys, she also has supporting roles in "All My Loves" drama and she was appeared on 85 episodes so she also had significant multiple roles too.
I saw other group like
Nsync, Some of them also don't have a lot of individual notability outside the group, but why they can have an individual page? --Sonflower0210 (talk) 14:57, 21 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. Wizardman 03:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew S. Wright

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

Don't believe that he meets

WP:NBASEBALL - only playing at amateur level Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:49, 7 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. Deor (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony C. Ocampo

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

promotional bio for non notable assistant professor. In a field dependent on books, he has not yet published any. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 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 deletion. While this company may or may not be notable, nothing currently in the ad would survive in an encyclopedia article. I'll provide the references given in it upon request. —Cryptic 19:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen SDMC Technology Co., Ltd.

Shenzhen SDMC Technology Co., Ltd. (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)

Provided sources appear to be from press releases, trade show promotional pieces and partner websites, thus failing

WP:ORGIND. Lacking further evidence, this would imply the company fails our notability criteria. Dolescum (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:43, 7 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 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submit press release 123

Submit press release 123 (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 notqbl. th r3f are either self-authoreed, press releases, or not substantially about the subject. Our bar for companies in the advertising business is and ought to be relatively high. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This company is featured in article in Forbes and TechCrunch and is a $100 M a year business. If you don't like parts that seem self promotional than edit them. But the article in Forbes was an interview so it makes sense the CEO would use that opportunity to promote his company. It's easy to get outraged and say "Delete" it but the company isn't going away and they meet the notability requirements so its unfair to delete them rather than edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the references are self-published (BuzzFeed user article, TechCrunch article, CNN "iReport" article, press release) or non-reliable sources (Forbes contributor blogs, Examiner.com). Many only mention the company in passing, and don't even support the cited claim. Reliable, third-party sources are required to demonstrate notability. Trivialist (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes and Techcrunch are not self submitted and 95% of articles are guests (Huffington Post has no in house writers.) Just because they are in passing doesn't validate them. He hasn't had a feature article yet, but has been in business for 15 years and does $100 Million a year in business. My sense is you don't like he's in advertising, but we can't eliminate all the advertising companies except the mega stars. If there's a problem with the claims then let's edit the article instead of deleting it. There's issues with many articles on Wikipedia and they are not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable company trying to bootstrap its own PR releases into sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. You don't explain either Forbes or Techcrunch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supereditor1001 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is from one of their contributor blogs, which don't receive editorial oversight from Forbes, so it's not suitable for establishing notability. CrunchBase describes itself as "a crowdsourced database, so anyone can edit any profile," and the sole contributor to the TechCrunch page is listed as Qamar Zaman, which is the same name as the company's owner. If the company is notable and does do $100 million in business, surely there is some independent, third-party coverage of this. Trivialist (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, have to agree with Trivialist here. There's a dearth of independent reliable sources to show notability beyond passing mentions. CrowCaw 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the non-reliable sources identified by Trivialist, the recently added ref (http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1202643) is not verified by CNN and not sourced. As such, it also fails to establish notability.
    talk) 15:23, 13 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. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. —Cryptic 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got7 1st Japan Tour 2014

Got7 1st Japan Tour 2014 (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)

Tour fails

WP:NTOUR. Article has no sources at all, no set list, no discussion of any aspect of the tour. I looked for sources myself and found nothing apart from two articles confirming the tour's existence. Requirement for significant coverage in independent, reliable media does not appear to have been met. These venues were all small and this is a new group, so it's very plausible this didn't make it on the radar in Japan. The first paragraph of the article doesn't make sense and appears to be copy-pasted from something else. I can't figure out a way to improve this article aside from adding a set list and some copyediting, which won't make it enough to meet NTOUR. (Voters, please familiarize yourself with NTOUR before commenting.) Shinyang-i (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Searching for ["got7" "日本ツアー" OR "全国ツアー"] gets about 20 pages of results on Japanese Google. This says that total attendance was 25,000. This is a report on the final concert at Makuhari Messe, which is a major venue. That drew about 5,000. The other venues were smaller. The concert report was about what they were wearing, who danced, etc. The set list could probably be added from other articles in Japanese. I don't know how significant all of this is, as tours go. It seems like a fairly short and small one that could be handled in their article. The official site was a Twitter page. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It'd be nice if article creators would do some work like you have. I was shocked to find such little info in English. :) I was wondering what you meant when you said the official site was a Twitter page? Shinyang-i (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this is the English Wikipedia. I don't know how much research we can expect people to do in other languages. Here is the Twitter page. On closer inspection it turns out to be the group's official Japanese page. Also I suspect that a lot of the action might be taking place on the mobile phone sites. Anyway, I think I'm going to abstain from !voting on this, because I don't have a good enough sense of what a notable tour is for a pop group. Obviously they're not Michael Jackson, but nobody else is either. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. True, nobody is Michael Jackson, but even U2 has had a notable tour or two. This isn't one, as even a cursory perusal of NTOUR demonstrates. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge/redirect into Got7#Japan_Tours. I said I wasn't going to !vote on this, but after looking at the rash of other articles on K-pop tours I think we have to establish some standards here. Of the ones up for AfD now, it looks to me like WP:Articles for deletion/Big Bang Japan Dome Tour 2014 has the best case for being a notable tour. If someone wants to recreate that one once there is something to say about it, OK. But not this one. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 (G12). MER-C 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Quek

Matthew Quek (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)

Unremarkable singer. Couldn't find any reliable coverage, only non-independent coverage.

csdnew 06:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a copyright violation from [28], [29] and probably others. Deleted. MER-C 10:20, 7 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 18:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Cenik

Ali Cenik (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)

Kickboxer who fails to meet the kickboxing notability criteria at

WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also agree with the nominator. He doesn't meet
    WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 03:59, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:58, 7 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) 19:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Osman (oilwrestler)

Kara Osman (oilwrestler) (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 biography with no sources and no indication of notability.Jakejr (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expanded slightly and added refs. Notable since he has been wrestling champion in Kırkpınar.--CeeGee 11:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the article's 3 references, I can't access two of them and the third mentions his name once. Does not meet
    WP:GNG and there's no supporting evidence to show he's a notable wrestler. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 11 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.  Sandstein  20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentalism (disambiguation)

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

All the claims here are unsourced and refer to concepts that have no article. If someone wants to write an article on (for example) Ethical Instrumentalism then fine let them do that and then we can have a disambiguation link but as of now this page serves no purpose. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.
    Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are not recognized distinctions; they are just made up. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:24, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:57, 7 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. Deor (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SM Town Live '08

SM Town Live '08 (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)

And another set of (three) K-pop concerts. Nothing in here is verified--there is only one single reference, and it may actually be reliable, but it pertains to the 2010 version of this series. See

WP:NTOUR, which requires discussion of the tour as a tour, not just individual performances or announcements. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the necessary info on the page could be condensed into a few sentences on the SM page Asdklf; (talk) 03:41, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' There is basically nothing in this article beyond "it happened". Per WP:NTOUR, that is not enough to warrant an article. As already mentioned, everything on this page could be summed up in a couple of sentences on the SM Town page. There is simply nothing else to say. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only reference seems to be routine, the only external link is promotional and from the subject. Search for sources reveals no indication of notability, even on korean language websites.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  13:09, 15 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. —Cryptic 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SM Town Live World Tour IV

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

Yet another K-pop tour without any reliable sourcing at all that discusses the tour as a tour (see

WP:NTOUR). The only sourcing that's there pertains to individual shows and most of it is not from reliable sources. It seems to me that the only purpose this article serves is as a collection of set lists. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drmies, no notable information. Set lists by themselves serve no encyclopedic values.--TerryAlex (talk) 01:07, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NTOUR. Article is a collection of set lists. Could be summarized in one or two sentences in the SM Town article. Sources that merely confirm the existence of a tour do not suffice to make it merit an article. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand from reliable sources or Delete – Should not be too hard to find at least Korean-language sources to back up importance of this tour. Monni (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks reliable sources.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  13:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. —Cryptic 19:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utkarsh Gupta

Utkarsh Gupta (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

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

 Comment:. Note that this page was earlier speedy deleted on 25 December 14 [30]. Nominated for CSD by me. It was created by another new account, Terific j (talk · contribs). 220 of Borg 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Band Famous

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

Prod declined. Author tried in good faith to fix the article, but most of the sources are not

WP:REFBOMBing by scraping up dozens of passing mentions. Several of the sources don't even mention the band at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. No indication of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:48, 7 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. None of the "keep" !votes are policy based and the meat-/sockpuppeting going on does not help either. Article is promotional, has no independent sourcing. Randykitty (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd.

Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. (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 doesn't seem to be anything about this publishing house outside of websites tied directly to it or organization's relating to the same religious revival movement (none of which are professionally done). This not only fails

WP:GNG. This seems like an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Comment congrats! you are so intelligent and have knowledge of hidden secrets!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iilluminate (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • why are most editors discussing sockpuppetry n not the article itself?? i dont know about others but really what a mess. Also the editors pointing out socketpuppetry are the ones with nil understanding of the article topic which relates to Islamic spirituality. User:MezzoMezzo is prominent and so is this User:kashmiri ...... plz dnt comment or place deletion tags on articles without reading up.

n plz improve article dnt blame each othr. Iilluminate (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the User:MezzoMezzo and User:kashmiri are just giving vague explanation regarding the articles in order to hit a particular organisation demonstrating their biased and suspicious behaviour.They must read the topic in order to get the full understanding so it will be cleared then this article is about knowledge and meaning of the true preachings of Sufism.so i'l vote for keeping this article so users may be acquainted with pearls of knowledge after reading this article.DAVIDmosla (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:: Accused parties may also comment see Defending yourself against claims. Note Some users defending their comments against Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364 182.185.229.16 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment::I just want you to make clear that you should debate on this article not some investigations which i am not aware of.For your kind information I am not defending any user the thing I said earlier was that this is a knowledgable article.Note their biaseness towards some sockpuppet investigation and no relating comment on the article.DAVIDmosla (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — DAVIDmosla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Unnecessary deletion If this publication is observed closely one can notice that it is being publishing books regularly on Sufism and topics related to it. For some those topics are not popular and for others ( a large number ) those topics are treasure and a source of consolation. Publishing books regularly and with ISBN its self discloses its growing popularity and enormous likeness. So i do not see any strong reason to delete this article unless some one is being bigotry. Keith Cawdry (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Keith Cawdry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No policy-based "keep" !votes. The meat/sockpuppeting doesn't help either. Randykitty (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr

Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr (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 cannot find any information or even slight mention of this organization outside of websites directly tied to it. This article fails

WP:GNG and merely seems like an attempt by someone tied to it to exploit Wikipedia to generate publicity. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC) MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://sultanpeerghafoorshah.wordpress.com/tag/tehreek-dawat-e-faqr-sultan-ul-faqr-sultan-ul-faqr-sultanulfaqr-alfaqr-sultan-ul-arifeen-silsala-sarwari-qadri-sultan-bahoo-ism-allah-zat-ism-e-mohammad-insan-e-kamil/ https://m.facebook.com/tehreekdawatefaqr http://tehreekdawatefaqr.wordpress.com/about/ there is some other too which recognize them u can check. There is no copyright violation done according to Wikipedia copyright rules as the organization tehreek dawat e faqr has allowed any visitor to utilize its material which can be copied or can be used. It has no copyrights reserved Wikipedia has also provided with the ticket to copy content from the mentioned site under the OTRS ticket #2013062010002201 so its material can be copied. The metioned 90% copy material is fundamental which is unchangeable and basic and are the terms which cannot be changed, so I think this deletion tag is baseless.FrancoSQ (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:GNG, The language of this Article is Informational not promotional 202.166.163.146 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Should Not Delete In a country like Pakistan which is targeted for terrorism, I see this organization as spreading Sufism via books and websites which is very crucial and important for the country. its worth something considering the chaos in the country at least its a way of spreading peace. even their books are online for downloading. i dnt think their aim is commercial. Seems informational to me. Only

WP:NOTESAL applies. Iilluminate (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE NOT REQUIRED

Couldn't agree more. The article doesn't require a delete...as it is a stand alone article. it is only informational. and Yes Pakistan does require such organizations to promote peace plus im relieved to find out such non-profit organizations exist who aim to spread

AfD JugniSQ (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]


  • " It should not be deleted " because

-Any organization cannot be categorized as Non-notable only on Wikipedia or internet basis, Wikipedia Policy also says that the notability -should not only be on internet or in English, the ground realities are also acceptable. -It is very notable on real grounds in Pakistan. It hosts and organizes different religious events in multiple parts of the country. -It has followers not only from Pakistan but International as well. -It is circulating published materials in country, therefore it is notable not only in common people but in Book Shops and Publications Houses as well.

110.93.205.162 (talk) 14:09, 14 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) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Farrukh

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

Not clear to me why Wikipedia should host a hoax (the External Links section shows that this page is a hoax). Shii (tock) 03:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: an unlikely claim repeated on many unreliable sites. While the Wikipedia article in its current form (thanks to
    Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Arab.
    הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it fails
    WP:GNG, period. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: I found one apparently reliable source that seems to mention the myth of Ibn Farrukh's discovery of America, as well as a reference to the above-mentioned refutation: World Islam (Vol. 4), p. 317, (edited?) by Andrew Rippin. Would that suffice for my proposed redirect? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Changed the link to point to the relevant passage. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good citation. Let's do that. Shii (tock) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thought, that might not be such a good idea. I've succeeded in maneuvering Google Books' snippet view enough to read the entire paragraph; the author (one Rafael A. Guevara Bazán) of the article (correct title: "Some notes for a history of the relations between Latin America, the Arabs and Islam", pp. 310–18; reprinted from Guevara Bazán, Rafael A. (1971). "Some notes for a history of the relations between Latin America, the Arabs and Islam". The Muslim World. 61 (4): 284–92.) does not make the less likely claim that Ibn Farrukh discovered America—he only repeats the alleged legend of visiting the Canary Islands, mentions doubts as to its authenticity, and proceeds to discuss the possibility of medieval Arabs discovering America. Thus, we have no reliable sources even for a brief mention as a hoax. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:18, 16 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. Debate marred by meat/sockpuppetry and an out-of-process attempt to close it. None of the "keep" !votes appears to be policy based. Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faqr-e-Iqbal

Faqr-e-Iqbal (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 niche foreign-language book, published in 2014, fails

WP:NBOOK completely. kashmiri TALK 03:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a part of the whole
    WP:NOTADVERTISING. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Justice should be equal. There are so many other Wikipedia articles on Urdu books. Delete them as well. The book is notable for those who read poetry and Sufism. Justice should be for all and not justice for selected. Delete Urdu-book articles such as

Tuhafat Ul Mujahideen

Pir-e-Kamil

and countless others

JugniSQ (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@
Tuhafat Ul Mujahideen is not an Urdu book. Pir-e-Kamil
has been translated into English and has had several reviews in mainstream English-language media.
This is my last response to you. Hope you will now stop
WP:TROLLING. kashmiri TALK 09:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

So you are against Urdu-book articles then? especially if they r not translated in English? what kind of idea is this? and how dare you call my idea crazy? that s a personal attack. At least be civil!

JugniSQ (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Reason To Delete.i have read this book Faqr e Iqbal and I don't think it as a promotion as these are the teachings of famous sufi poet ===Muhammad Iqbal=== and this book has no such material like to promote any organisation this is just the book based on preachings of Muhammad Iqbal and I don't think the user who is hitting this knowledgable book has read this book for a single time as if he has read this book he would have known that these are not the promotions but are the teaching and preachings of Muhammad Iqbal with its true meaning.I think this deletion tag is just a personal biaseness of user:kashmiri who don't know the content of book otherwise would find it a great piece of knowledgeable informative book not an advertisement.FrancoSQ (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Following what was revealed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364, it's quite convenient that after three consecutive SPIs, we again have some brand new accountsd with the same level of English as a second language and the same tendency to ignore all common formatting conventions for AfD comments. They're also all making the same weak, irrelevant arguments bent on defending this and the related articles on non-notable subjects tied to this organization. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article talks about a book on Sir Muhammad Iqbal who is a very famous personality who had an international influence. See article on Sir Muhammad Iqbal. Also this article holds a neutral point of view. Iilluminate (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as this is not a platform for promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not one of the sources refers to this book from 2014. The author is perhaps notable, but not this treatise. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • The book cannot be objected as WP:NBOOK because
- it complies with
WP:BOOKSTORE Google Books, Slideshare
.
- it's all about explaining and conveying Muhammad Iqbal's poetry. and more precisely describes the topic of Faqr
110.93.205.162 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BKTS are minimum standards - they are necessary but not sufficient to include a book on WP. There is an article on Muhammad Iqbal and all explanations can go there. kashmiri TALK 13:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]


Unnecessary deletion

Mr. Iqbal a renowned philosophical personality(worldwide) and a famous poet of Sub-continent,have tones of poetry work,significantly focusing on mysticism and Sufism,topically

faqr
. This book is a cluster of his poetry on faqr and Sufism. After a meticulous study it can be concluded that this article is legitimate to be on Wikipedia and should not be wasted by unnecessary deletion. Keith Cawdry (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Need to Delet.
    Javed Nama are some of the most famous collection of poetry of Sir Muhammad Iqbal .It is important to note that each collection has a separate WP article. Same is the case with this very article Faqr-e-Iqbal . Since this book explains about the core Islamic ideology of Sir Muhammad Iqbal i.e. Faqr, hence this article must sustain and should not be deleted. Azuz sandy (talk) 19:00, 14 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 Nomination withdrawn. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ika Hügel-Marshall

Ika Hügel-Marshall (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:ANYBIO. Non-notable author of a non-notable book. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator Chris Troutman (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:58, 7 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no !votes made to delete. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 06:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translator (computing)

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

I have taken courses in programming languages and compiler design at the university, and have never heard this term. The term for a computer program transforming from one language to another is simply "compiler". To compile simply means to translate from one language to another. Also, article has no references, and a quick Google search doesn't find anything but Wikipedia itself. And the inclusion of interpreters in that article just underscores how misguided it is, since an interpreter certainly doesn't translate anything. Thue (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: Well, there are even some university courses that cover translators within the context of programming languages. At the same time, intepreters also translate computer programs from one language to another, it's just that they don't do that at once but incrementally during the execution of a program. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I retract. The term was not used at my university, and the total lack of references tricked me. Also, I am still going to replace the use of the "translator" term with "compiler" at KPHP, since using the more specific term is always better. And compilers do include compiling to other languages than assembler/machine code. Thue (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As our Compiler article says in its lead section, "the name 'compiler' is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine code)", so calling KPHP a compiler would be actually slightly misleading. Calling it a "source-to-source translator" is as specific as it should be. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:00, 7 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.  Sandstein  20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)

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

Republic of Estonia and History of Estonia. It is also a POV fork as it gives the impression that the pre and post war Estonian republics are not the same entity. Similar content fork created by Elevatorrailfan (talk · contribs) was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland (1937-1949). --Nug (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Sure, the article History of Estonia needs improvement and the relevant templates cleaned up to reduce confusion, deleting this content fork is part of that clean up. The two sections in the article subject of this AFD adds nothing new, both have text copy pasted from the articles Estonian War of Independence and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic which is already summarised in Estonia and History of Estonia anyway. --Nug (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic having existed from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles
Republic of Estonia
after the Soviet era. The following is a list of sources:
As it stands this article is factually incorrect as the infobox says the Estonian government-in-exile succeeded it, however the sources cited above state otherwise, and Estonia's 1938 constitution remained in force until it was amended by referendum in 1992, one year after its de facto independence was restored. Note that this article was for a long time, since 2007[32], a redirect to History of Estonia#Independence. Only in May 2012 was it turned into an article[33] but that was promptly reverted back some days later into a redirect[34]. But again it was turned back into an article in December 2014[35], so deletion is necessary given that this is turning into a potential POV magnet. --Nug (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the redirect
Republic of Latvia (1918–1940), should be changed to an article. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) was created by an indef-banned user R-41 (talk · contribs). --Nug (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If it was just a periodization of Estonian history then it should be called
History of Estonia (1918-1940), otherwise it remains a POV fork. --Nug (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - Truly, it is difficult to see any meaningful information added to this article, which would not be already present in 'Estonia' or 'History of Estonia'. Also, the POV issue. Oth (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is an appropriate way to divide the History of Estonia. The history of this country in this period seems to be woefully ill-recorded in WP, unless I have missed something. The general history article describes the attainment of indepenedence, then covers the following period in one short paragraph. The section has a main template leading to events of 1934-40, but I see nothing on 1920-34, not even a list of presidents. I agree the present article is not a good one, but teh solution is to improve it not delete it or merge it back to a mpre general article. It may be a fork, but cannot be a POV fork unless someone can point to where it is forked from. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a POV fork of
Republic of Estonia, implying that the pre-war state was a separate and distinct entity, but in fact it is the same according to reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 10:25, 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) 01:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the proper way to divide Estonian history per Peterkingiron. A completely appropriate way to divide a section of its history. As Carrite says its pretty open and shut. It isn't POV because that is what the name was at that point in time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove the former country infobox and rename it
Republic of Estonia. --Nug (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The Baltic states, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991. This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, or as a matter of law, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991. Continue reading here --Klõps (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Superfluous article, all of the relevant content is already covered elsewhere in depth. Why is there even a deletion discussion, just creating redirect to Estonia would have been sufficient. There are no sources showing Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) as an separate entity from Republic of Estonia, so unless such sources are found and presented, the whole article needs to be blanked anyway under WP:Verifiability. --Sander Säde 08:11, 14 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Arab World

Miss Arab World (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 beauty pageant. No independent refs.

Stuartyeates (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I easily found a NY Times article, a RT (Russian Times and Reuters article at the LA Times plus several others. --Spshu (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is there and has coverage. The

notability needs to be established more though. - Pmedema (talk) 19:42, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 7 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 Keep per

WP:BEFORE. (Non-admin closure). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

7½ Phere

7½ Phere (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)

Relevance and notability of a non-English-language movie not shown outside of India on the English Wikipedia. No sources - much less primarily English-language sources - have been cited for why it is notable other than existing as a movie production, nor demonstrating notability to people who live outside of India: a link to the IMDB entry does not suffice. For that matter, the movie didn't even review well in the first place within India, leading one to question even further why this film is considered notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not the IMDB, and the IMDB exists for exactly the purpose of cataloging movies and TV regardless of notability or origin. A quick search reveals precisely zero coverage by reliable (much less themselves notable) 3rd-party sources or coverage of any note/value in the English language aside from a short synopsis in the Hindustan times which is of no encyclopedic value, and does not confer, imply or describe any notability.

((Addressed to the article author/maintainer: Simply being made as a movie is NOT inherent notability: the Wikipedia is not, I repeat ***NOT*** the IMDB. See

WP:NOTFILM, and you will find this movie does not appear to fulfill the basic criteria for establishing notability regarding films.)) besiegedtalk 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 01:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 02:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Snow Nominator doesn't the know basics.

  1. Being the English Wikipedia means what is written on Wikipedia should be in English, not the subjects or references. Wish it were true, then there wouldn't be so much Kpop, Jpop, Anime and footballers.
  2. English is one of the two national languages of India. India contains the 2nd largest group of English speakers of any nation, just after the US.
  3. Doesn't matter where any film is made or shown as long as there are references in any language to support GNG
  4. There are enough English references to show that it meets GNG. This doesn't even count the Hindi sources. Bgwhite (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification I believe I should clarify here that I am not asserting that a lack of English-language coverage makes this film non-notable, but rather that the film simply fails notability on ANY grounds, and that the existence of coverage in English would be a strong argument for this movie being notable. However, there is absolutely nothing about this film that passes the standard guidelines of notability in any way besides the simple fact that it exists, which is not a valid reason. Otherwise we'd be cataloging every movie ever made on this wiki, which is patently not happening, and not policy: as above, that's what the IMDB is for.
I have no desire to debate the "English in India" topic: * Keep – This article and what is about have enough notability and relevance, it's not the actual issue here, nor why the article was nominated. In fact, as you point out, if English is India's official second language, then there SHOULD be coverage in English of this film IF it were, in fact, notable, yet there is nothing of any value besides a short synopsis in the Hindustan times which itself does nothing to confer notability per
WP:MOVIE
, nor anything else readily available detailing why this film is of any more note than any other generic romantic comedy movie which has received no awards of note nor made any technical or cinematographic accomplishments, breakthrough's etc., that would qualify it for an article on this site. It isso unfortunate that such a notability evaluation has done. Please remove deletion notice from the article immediately, otherwise just one of thousands of generic low-grade films that could be made anywhere in the world and still not be notable precisely because it is so generic.
  • The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
  • The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  1. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
  2. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
  3. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
  4. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
  • The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
  • The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
  • The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Also,
  • The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)[5]
  • The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.
  • The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.[6]
As far as I can tell, it does not pass notability on any of these grounds, though I am, of course, unable to read Indian-language articles to determine if it has received two or more "full-length reviews" by nationally known critics, or even of determining if a critic is in fact nationally known in India; therefore, I believe it is reasonable to say that unless/until someone can specifically cite (with references) which of the above grounds applies this film does not pass the notability test, regardless of whether some people have latched on to and taken offense from misreading my comments and presuming I have some sort of pro-English/anti-Indian bias/bigotry, which is absolutely not the case. As above, I brought up English only because it would lend weight to notability claims, not because I believe only English sources are valid. Simply having a synopsis blurb a paragraph long on a website doesn't satisfy the above requirements per
WP:MOVIE. besiegedtalk 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


  • "other attributes to consider" which are NOT notability criteria, but are set only to encourage due diligence. An Indian film does not have to be notable outside of India and he grants an inability to read or find possible Hindi sources, so I would encourage him please, to avoid areas he admits to being unable to judge. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:42, 8 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.  Sandstein  20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-Cancer

Bio-Cancer (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:Band Gaff (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 7 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. Number 57 15:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kahloon clan

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

There is no explanation on why this group of people is notable. The source cited just mentions it in passing (no significant coverage). Google Search cannot find any reliable sources [43]. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@
Kahloon
. Here is more references other than the one reference provided (Kahlon is more common name):

--Nawabmalhi (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough content outside this website for confirming any notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at these google searches: [45] [46], the subject matter is notable. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What they have described about the clan? You believe that there is any scope? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
significantly covers this subject? Vanjagenije (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
First one is one snippet book, would be helpful if you provide a quote. Second one is mention of Javed Safdar Kahlon which is irrelevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The book is just another listing, and neither the author nor the publisher are known to me. I've got no idea why he thinks they are an "important" tribe. The newspaper source is even worse and I've lost track of the number of times I've tried to explain to you that we cannot assume that someone bearing a particular name is affiliated with a particular clan. If we could, then Helen Reddy would have roots in south India and I am 99% certain she does not. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush, sorry for the confusion on the Newspaper Javed Safdar and Abrar-ul-Haq are both Kahlon and I was reffering to this quote: 'As a wealthy Jat in a constituency where Jats are the largest, though a generally poor, biradiri, Haq is relying on two factors to help him win vote...' . Now turning to the book the author and publishing company seem reliable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawabmalhi (talk • contribs) 19:13 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I have added two new sources that are not raj. Their existence is further bolstered through the Google searches and Raj sources, I think deletion is overstepping in this particular scenario as referencing is not too difficult. And they are many sources in hindi, urdu, and punjabi which back their existence. I think the task should be restoration and authentication in relation to articles on

Jat people.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

This is becoming disturbing, I agree. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Nyttend yes they are census' taken during British Raj. These census along with most sources published during the Raj are not considered that reliable when it comes to any sort of history because they are exaggerated and exenorated acounts taken from different tribes describing their origin and history.
However when it comes to proof of existence of certain tribe or entity they are relatively reliable but use beyond this on Wikipedia is not recommended because figuring out what is fact or myth becomes complicated and deciphering the sources and interpreting sources will be original research.
As a side note a census is more reliable than any published Raj source. Nawabmalhi (talk)
@
User:Sitush/sandbox3 for a (very slow-developing) draft about the Raj census operations. And yet again, Nawabmalhi, I must point out that mere existence is insufficient for retention. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Gardner

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

Seems to fail

WP:NOTNEWS, in that there is no detail to the biography or assertion of notability outside of reporting of their death; a look for sources from the usual channels produced no better sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 7 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) 07:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ip Tai Tak

Ip Tai Tak (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 claims of notability and no independent sources. It doesn't matter who his teacher was since notability is not inherited and the only two sources are by one of his students. There's also nothing to indicate he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists.Jakejr (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 7 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.  Sandstein  20:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Urbina

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

He was a youth boxer who was beaten to death in 2013. He doesn't meet

WP:GNG is not met.Jakejr (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I honestly see enough sources to support it. LorTalk 02:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please indicate where the significant coverage is that is unrelated to his murder? Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like all murders it's a tragedy, but I don't see that he would be notable otherwise. It appears to me that it's a case of someone being notable for one event and I don't believe that's enough reason to keep this article. Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He wouldn't be notable without the coverage of his murder and that is nothing out of the ordinary for victims. Mdtemp (talk) 21:05, 13 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) 00:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Travis

Dom Travis (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)

Pro wrestler with no independent sources. Only references are from the wrestling organization that employed him.Jakejr (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a couple of mentions in local papers, but not what I would call significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: worth also searching for coverage under his stage name, Kastor LeVay. TheBlueCanoe 17:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only one and two mentions in nine
    WP:PW/RS indicates a lack of exposure and success in this field of wrestling. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:ENT.LM2000 (talk) 01:10, 10 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Valle

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails

WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep - The article has a reference that indicates he made one appearance in the Primera for Colo-Colo (only because the club played an entire squad of reserves while the regular team competed in the Libertadores), but I don't think that's enough to make him notable without more evidence the article could satisfy the GNG but another reference indicates he appeared several times in the Primera for Colo-Colo and there is some coverage of his short spell with Jacksonville in the A-League (which possibly is fully-pro) so I think the GNG could be satisfied after all (this interview with El Mercurio is non-routine coverage, but doesn't indicate he's really noteworthy). I could be convinced to keep if there was more significant coverage available, but I'm not finding it online. Jogurney (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Was the chilean league professional back in the early 90's?Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not. I remembered a US goalkeeper who played in the Primera during this period, and he is reported to have only been paid room and board during his first season with U. Católica (see this story) - which calls into doubt it's degree of professionalism at that time. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 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_7&oldid=1142625854"