Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 16 May 18 May >

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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monetate

Monetate (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 company. article by paid editor. The award is local one only, not a national one. The NYTimes articles is about more general matters, not substantially about this particular company. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Rajagopalan

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

Completely fails to meet

WP:BIO as there is zero substantial coverage in RS. The claimed LAT article is in fact an advertorial in Beverly Hills Times Magazine. Other coverage is just brief mentions. SmartSE (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow close/speedy delete as

(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Luca the werewolf daughter

Luca the werewolf daughter (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 self-published book, fails

talk 21:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 22:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky Nandos

Cheeky Nandos (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)

Flash-in-the-pan meme with zero deep third-party coverage; belongs in Urban Dictionary, not in Wikipedia. <b2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rosswood

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

There are concerns this article does not meet

WP:GNG, and it was previously redirect per these concerns. Given the substantial article with some demonstrated notability, I considered it better to nominate it for AfD to gain a sure consensus. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scorsese Eats a Cookie

Martin Scorsese Eats a Cookie (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'm not sure why we have an article for a 20 second skit from

WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this little clip was intended to spoof Scorsese's speaking toward eating cookies in his describing acting methods, lacking commentary or analysis in reliable sources, it fails
    WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ƬheStrikeΣagle 11:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1355 Magoeba

1355 Magoeba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1964 Luyten

1964 Luyten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1935 Lucerna

1935 Lucerna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1292 Luce

1292 Luce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1937 Locarno

1937 Locarno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Beatty (author)

Robert Beatty (author) (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)

Written by paid editor asa advertising for an author publishing his first book, a children's novel that, according to Worldcat is in only one library [14], referenced only to a book review in the no longer very reliable Kirkus. Some of his other activities rely on PR for non-notable science projects.

He might possibly be a notable technological entrepreneur, if an additional source can be found confirming his founding of Plex Systems--our article gives his boss as the founder. 2007 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year sounds impressive, but not when it seems to be only for the Great Lakes region in a subject category.

The advertising purpose is best shown by the qualification of the subject as "author"--a npov writer would have picked "entrepreneur" of something of that sort--not author.

Needs to be blown up , and started over, if any one wants to do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanala Sagal

Hanala Sagal (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:CREATIVE, to earn an article the conventional way — we are not a venue for the commercial or public relations promotion of aspiring celebrities. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when valid sourcing is actually available. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battlegrounds 2

Battlegrounds 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG, cannot find any significant independent coverage on this mod. The1337gamer (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First time doing this, not sure if this is the proper way or not.

Battlegrounds 2 is a 10 year old free source mod, there isn't going to be much coverage of it from independent news sites. It was one of the major mods for half life 2 back in the early 2000s, but its popularity has dropped. The main places it is still discussed our the website and moddb, which I have linked in the edited page for the mod on Wikipedia. Of course there are steam groups and gamer clan websites, but those didn't seem relevant for a wiki page. There are numerous videos on youtube showcasing the mod with views in the hundreds of thousands. In the modding community for half life 2, BG2 is fairly well known. I will continue to update the wiki page with screenshots and updates if that will help.

I will update the main page with some of these references as well. (Will_Hawke)

Bro Team plays Battleground 2 http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33838347 http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/557427 http://www.moddb.com/mods/battle-grounds-2/reviews https://www.facebook.com/pages/Battlegrounds-2/110892168947170 https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Battle_Grounds_2 http://www.thecarnivoressaga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1152 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?374348-Revolutionary-War-Half-Life-2-mod-The-Battle-Grounds-II!

How are user reviews for a free product not a reliable source? It's third party, as close to secondary sources as a free video game can get, since it's independent of the mod team. It's a video game, how else am I going to show sources on it if not from third party reviews or discussions? The moddb links show user reviews, media updates, press releases and so on. I'm not sure what else I can add. I did add a french review of one of the mod updates to the main Bg2 wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs)

I was not aware the requirements for an entry were so stringent. Wikipedia has a reputation for being wildly unreliable. My understanding is that there is a period of seven days before deletion. I will speak with older members of the community to see if there is "coverage" of the mod that meets your requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs)

You lot have obviously made up your minds to delete it regardless of the sources I proposed and this is simply going through the motions. Go ahead and delete the article and you won't waste anymore time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It's not so much that, as much as that, if you understood Wikipedia policy, you'd understand that this is a pretty clean-cut case. Also, these generally run for 7 days unless there is a really overwhelming amount of support to keep or delete something. It probably won't be closed early unless a bunch more people comment... Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:

    if you understood Wikipedia policy, you'd understand that this is a pretty clean-cut case.

You and your "associates" have made it perfectly clear, hence why I said to delete the page, either now or in due course.

It probably won't be closed early unless a bunch more people comment...

I thought I made it rather clear in the posts above and in the links provided that this is a rather old source mod played by a small community. I doubt we'll be flooded with comments. As you say, it's a "clean-cut case." I tried my best to provide a variety of sources that related to the mod, and they were not acceptable and that's an end to it. The mod can get exposure from other sites. Thank you all for your time. Unless this is your job, in which case you earned your wage.

Tally-ho Will Hawke (talk • contribs)

Delete as it seems more like an advert than an article --☣Anarchyte☣ 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Mary K. Estes

Mary K. Estes (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:PROF but still consensus needed. Mr RD 18:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1636 Porter

1636 Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably), per NASTRO, redirected to list of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1701 Okavango

1701 Okavango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably), per NASTRO, redirected to list of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyed Ibn Tawus

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

Delete. While the subject of this article may be notable, the entire article violates

WP:PEACOCK
and falls short of a neutral position. The following sentences illustrate what I am talking about:

  • Sayyed Ibn Tawus (Arabic: سید ابن طاووس) was a prominent Shiite jurist
  • He was famous for meeting the twelfth Shiite imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi who according to Shiite was/ is living in occultation.
  • He is also famous for his library and his numerous works
  • One of his forefathers was a handsome man with ugly legs
  • His famous children were known by the name of their mother.
  • When Hulagu Khan conquered Baghdad, it is famous that he asked the Scholars of the city
  • It is famous that Ibn Tawus had direct contact with Muhammad al-Mahdi
 Ormr2014 | Talk   15:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In order for this article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, it would require a complete rewrite. In such cases, despite the notability of the subject matter, deletion is completely acceptable (See Starting from Scratch).
The use of Peacock terminology does not substantiate notability and even if that were the intent of the author, it still violates
WP:Peacock. Ormr2014 | Talk  16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Articles that require complete rewrite are not necessarily suitable for deletion; they are suitable for rewrite. If you see an article that is clearly
YO 😜 17:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Can someone who speaks Persian please explain this user that
WP:PEACOCK has nothing to do with the subject's name; nor does confusing and/or pretending to confuse the two things repeatedly make him any more or less notable.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:PEACOCK and know about it. Also, I explained that all problems solved. I think you have more problem with topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Papeli44 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please take a basic course in human social skills. You are clearly incompetent.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can think that I am incompetent and your mind is not important for me.Papeli44 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Papeli44 (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clear now, with only the nominator still supporting deletion Davewild (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charitha Herath

Charitha Herath (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 individual - fails

WP:COATRACK. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just because a person exists does not necessarily make them notable. Essentially the individual should meet
WP:NACADEMIC, in this case we have a minor bureaucrat/minor academic that does not appear to have achieved anything significant or notable. None of the references cited by User:Wikicology seem to establish anything otherwise.Dan arndt (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
t@lk to M£ 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikicology if you consider that your references establish the subject's notability then why haven't you included then in the article to demonstrate how. Dan arndt (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources exist as references for multiple reasons and they are primarily used to validate claims on Wikipedia. I really don't have the time to expand the article so why the need to add citations? For example, if am interested in written on his criticism, I may find Global tamil News helpful and therefore add it to the article. That's how things work here.
t@lk to M£ 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment so whilst you consider the individual is notable you don't believe that the article should include those referenced sources that you believe establish its notability. The references in the article clearly do not establish notability merely that he is a minor bureaucrat for a junior government agency and a non-notable academic. Dan arndt (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done he clearly meets
t@lk to M£ 08:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1972 Yi Xing

1972 Yi Xing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. There's a paper on it and another minor planet, but it does not appear to be significant coverage. ― Padenton|✉   22:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity

Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity (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 book. only 68 holdings in worldcat. One mention in a bibliography does not make for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by a mention in a bibliography. The book used as a source is not a listing of other books; it's a book about homosexuality, and discusses Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity among other books. Could you please explain what you mean, DGG? The fact that only one source is provided in the article does not mean that other sources do not exist or could not be added. If you look up
talk) 06:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It requires significant coverage from multiple sources, and I believe this has been provided. Zucker's article and LeVay's book are the two key sources. Your other argument is equivalent to (for example) arguing that articles about Freud's individual books should be deleted because of the existence of the article
talk) 22:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
All Freud's books are discussed in many sources, and his ideas are so complicated and subject of so many interpretations it is completely unfeasible to cover them in one article. I don't see hundreds of scholarly works on Rekers. If by chance you can name a Freud book that genuinely isn't discussed in third party sources, I would support a merge or other treatment.
The policy of merging non-notable books is supported by
WP:BKCRIT requires the book to be "the subject" of multiple articles or reviews, not just mentioned in passing. If you can show LeVay provides in-depth discussion, that would help. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This is LeVay's discusion of the book in full: "Later Rekers began to reveal a virulent antipathy toward homosexuality. In his 1982 book, Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity, Rekers described homosexuality as a 'promiscuous and perverted sexual behavior,' and he bemoaned the fact that 'homosexuality has been sold to the unwary public as a right between consenting adults.'" It may be brief, but I don't consider it trivial. More importantly, I've found a source that discusses the book in much more detail: Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and School Work in the Twentieth Century, by Jackie M. Blount. It says that Rekers's book was influential; I've added the source. You can check it yourself on Google Books; see here. I would ask you and the other delete voters to reconsider your position.
talk) 10:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would accept a merge to the author. I should have thought of that initially. We could justify a separate article perhaps on the basis of the added material, but I think it would be more helpful merged, and according to WP:N, we can choose to do that. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what your argument actually supports is a merge to Rekkers, if the book is significant in his work. He's not so famous that any book of his is necessarily notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing an argument there; there is no basis for a merge. There are enough sources that discuss and analyse this book independently of the author to show that it is independently notable. The discussion has gone on long enough and can be ended; it's at least a no consensus result.
talk) 05:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Averis

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

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Last AfD only closed as no consensus because it failed to attract any comments. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 17:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Madagascar. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guidelines as an individual article, and redirect seems to fit most rationales best. Davewild (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Timothy Smart

Timothy Smart (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 claim or evidence of notability. I don't think being a country's ambassador will suffice on its own. Dmol (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. being from a major country doesn't add to notability either. No inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are news results about him in English and French. Being an ambassador for a country as prominent as the UK is generally notable as typically only people of high esteem are given this role. Elgatodegato (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, there is no inherent notability about being from the uk. Also, please provide actual links to indepth coverage of him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted per request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 14:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it would help build consensus, I would be happy with a redirect. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by

non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy and COI ducks

User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy and COI ducks (edit | [[Talk:User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy and COI ducks|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator request - User Sandbox draft that has been archived Atsme☎️📧 14:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@
YO 😜 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Done - hope I did it correctly. What next? Do I need to delete anything else? --Atsme☎️📧 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it looks good! An admin hopefully will delete it shortly.
YO 😜 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged here. The notion of a merge for these two articles can continue to to be discussed at

Talk:List of rail accidents (2010–present) if desired. North America1000 07:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

2015 Heimdal train derailment

2015 Heimdal train derailment (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 derailment, along with

List of rail accidents (2010-present)#2015
already has an entry for both derailments that is sufficient in covering them. I have seen worse incidents on the rails that we do not have articles on, including a few in the NYC Subway, but we are not going to have articles on every single rail accident and derailment in history, are we?

2015 Galena train derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 13:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not how things work. If it is not notable enough to make any long term impact, it does not need to be kept. Wikipedia does not keep articles of events that are forgotten in a few days. This is a clear case of
WP:NOTNEWS. TL565 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per

(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dipjyoti Borah

Dipjyoti Borah (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)

Twenty-year-old who, we are told, is yet another blogger and the founder of yet another website. No independent sourcing, and a search engine shows little that's neither humdrum nor self-promotion. Hoary (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - In addition to the fact that nothing is found in the web, this articles was already deleted in the past, basing on the non significance. And by the name of the creator it looks like that it's the same person. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My browser won't display the biographee's waytohow.com. It seems to be somehow related to plus.google.com/+Waytohow/posts, which hardly seems in any way noteworthy. I can view the source of waytohow.com. This has an extraordinary number of META tags with the attribute CONTENT; the value for one of these is "We provide Social network, Money making online, traffic tips,education tips, Programming. WayToHow.com, Android, WhatsApp, Facebook, Blogging Tips" and that for the other is "We provide tutorials and unique are articles relates to Making Money online, SEO, Blogging Tips and much more tricks and tips, Hot stuffs and film update". -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am rather surprised that I don't remember that name... That is one irritating site - it's slow to load, and has one of those annoying 'Subscribe to us' popups that keeps coming back. People make money out of things like that? I suppose that there are adverts that I don't see. I will say that he's put work into it. Anyway, that's nowt to do with notability. I usually reckon that if there is nothing worth investigating in the first 10 pages of ghits, there is unlikely to be anything still to come. I do use minuses to eliminate false hits. Didn't need to here. Four pages +1 hit - and nothing looking like an RS. Seems to be quite a bit of publicity seeking, which is, of course, why he's here. May be notable some day - Huffington Post didn't become notable overnight. In the meantime, I'd advise salt as well as delete. Peridon (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that this version of the article is way better than the one I deleted - but creating a good-looking article is not the same as creating a Good Article. You can't make a suit of clothes out of Vogue magazines. You need cloth, and the right sort of cloth - and that's what isn't there yet. Peridon (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As
WP:NOTHERE. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, salting seems a good idea. ¶ Incidentally, the author of the article seems unfamiliar with reality. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 07:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Escambia County Fire Rescue

Escambia County Fire Rescue (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 sources at all. Links to poorly done website that doesn't support half the information on the page. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimated there were 30,125 fire departments in the United States in 2010. That number has certainly risen in the past 5 years and this is just in the United States. While we could indeed include the article Escambia County Fire Rescue in Wikipedia, given the sheer number of such entities worldwide and the impracticality of including them all here, I believe that only the most notable fire departments should be included here. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:DEL-REASON or topic specific Notability guideline AND sufficient evidence that the research on the topic would be insufficient. Sadads (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @[email protected]: well said. I would point out something though. There are also 39,044 cities in the United States. And they all DO get a page. Personally my issue is that the page has nothing cited and doesn't have anything supporting the claims it makes. If the Escambia County Fire Rescue website had any information about the stations and their apparatus, I would personally feel very differently about having this page. As it is though it basically just says "There is a fire department in this city." Which is great... I kind of assumed that there was... It doesn't add anything though. Just my 2 cents. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exonucleophagy

Exonucleophagy (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 notable

I searched this term in google and 1 got one result - a youtube video

I searched this term in pubmed and got no results: [30]

Also, the one reference in the article (which appears to be a secondary source) does not seem to use the term, although the document is not searchable and I have only made a quick scan [31]. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems like a neologism or a term that is a poor translation. I linked it to the French article (Exonucléophagie) but it does not have any additional sources.
    YO 😜 10:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It sounds like it could be a word, but I can find no evidence that this term is used by anyone other than Mark Bonner (a dentist who seems to be plugging his neologism through youtube and twitter) and Ragaa Issa (an Egyptian professor who is clearly not proficient in English and whose review citing Bonner was published in the typical kind of bottom-feeder journal that exploits non-Western academics). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does get one hit in Google scholar, but it's an unreliable source (on Beall's list of
    predatory open access publishers). Even if it were reliable, it wouldn't be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karvir clan

Karvir 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)

Fails

WP:GNG. Have searched extensively since the allegedly disruptive PROD, including for other alternate spellings such as Karveer. The prodder was tagging several articles of this type, all created by the same person, and in fact was correct to do so. Some have since been deleted anyway. Sitush (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy. The consensus is that although the subject of the article is only

non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ryan Alexander Dewar

Ryan Alexander Dewar (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 director lacking non-trivial support. The article has a lot of references, but they are trivial in nature. Most are either one line comments about the individual or do not even mention the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reddogsix appears to be relentlessly harnessing a disruptive and unhelpful approach at improving the article as well as assigned images on wikimedia commons through attempted speedy deletion of public domain imagery. Please be constructive in nature with suggestions of improvement and sourcing further links and data or edits within the article as we appreciate your comments, suggestions and advice. As above, contest your personal view using the word trivial sources pertaining national and local press, alternative film websites such as IMDB, official filmmaker site. Written magazine editions also exist though not online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysod (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Rysod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (in response to Bearian's suggestion about userfication). I had considered userfication previously and so I feel I should explain why I hadn't initially pursued this. I put in quite a lot of work to improve the content and rework material of this article so that it was in an appropriate format for Wikipedia. This also included some efforts to educate a major contributor- Rysod, who was going back and reapplying edits that were causing problems such as overlinking. However, a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's Manual of Style is not the major issue. I still have concerns about the role of this editor which are not resolved. It has been suggested that the creator of this article, Rysod has a significant conflict of interest to declare, but this editor has not made any declaration relating to this. There is a maintenance tag relating to this which would need to be removed for userfication to occur. Rysod has also attacked another editor when they were trying to intervene against suspected copyright violations- there has been no retraction of this nor any apology. This may have put other editors off working on the article- it has now been been 11 days since anyone has made any edits to the article. So I would be against userfication to the user namespace of creator Rysod. If the outcome of this discussion is userfication, I would be happy for the article to be moved into my own user namespace, having already become quite familiar with the subject matter and the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchriswilliams (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy- I agree with Bearian's assessment. There's indication he is on the rise but he hasn't had enough notable projects yet. Perhaps userfy and improve.
    YO 😜 12:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Userfy: Having outlined my concerns and having given further thought to recent comments, I have withdrawn my vote for deletion, I'm now more confident that efforts to userfy the content of this article would not be futile. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Lipman

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an inadequately supported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 03:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of biggest economies

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

Unsourced, not verifiable. All economic content is missing. The talk page suggests that this list is based on an algorithm developed by the author. jergen (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery

Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery (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)

Comment: Although I am neutral and also the creator of this page, I am still marking it for AfD as an editor feels that these article fails

WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please vote as deemed fit. Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: My personal opinion is not to delete the article and have merely nominated this as an editor "feels" that this article fails

WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please don't take my nomination OR comment as the recommendation (either way) and use your own judgment. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The comments above (about me, the 'other editor') are false. I indicated that the articles appear promotional and unencyclopedic, but did not say that it was

make a point, despite the fact that the redirects were fine as they were, as already indicated by five editors prior to the AfDs (myself, a third opinion respondent, two admins, and another reverting editor).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Because you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said, repeatedly misrepresented what the admins said, and you lodged an entirely false vandalism report about me. Do you seriously imagine that I should not give 'my side' after you make claims about what I supposedly 'feel'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it is true that Bgwhite indicated that it could have gone to AfD earlier, he also indicated that placing the redirects instead was also appropriate, which made the AfD process redundant thereafter. As such, the
point is indeed to waste people's time (in addition to being another opportunity for AKS.9955 to misrepresent what I actually said about why the articles were not suitable).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
YO 😜 09:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No it is *not* a G7 speedy deletion request, and we know that because the nominator has said so! Mr Potto (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite used the past tense about an AfD, and gave no indication that an AfD was necessary after it had been redirected again instead, which Bgwhite specifically said was appropriate and he agreed with it. The AfD after that is merely a tendentious effort to make a point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it a speedy deletion request. Mr Potto (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
    —Мандичка, I agree, opinions are irrelevant. Also, just because the article creator has nominated the article, does not mean it has to be mandatorily deleted. It still has to go through voting process; right? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No. There is no voting process for articles that qualify for speedy deletion. That's why it's called "speedy" deletion.
YO 😜 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, this article has not been nominated for speedy deletion, is it? You have merely voted for a speedy deletion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has, because you nominated it. Therefore it automatically qualifies for speedy deletion. People who want to keep a page they created do not nominate them for deletion, because that would be ridiculous, as this discussion is, and would only result in the page being deleted.
YO 😜 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
No, an article creator nominating their own article for discussion regarding possible deletion is not a speedy deletion request. If you're not able to understand that, at least the closing admin will and should discount your insistence that it is. Mr Potto (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the claim that there is something amiss with nominating your own article for deletion and then !voting against deletion. If I create an article and other editors are of the opinion that it should be deleted but don't know enough to list it at AfD, I might very well list it myself to give the opinion of the newbies a fair hearing. Nothing wrong with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can indeed request speedy deletion of an article they have created where they are the only substantial contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they can, but Mr Singh clearly hasn't - and we know that, because he has said so. Mr Potto (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take time to review
YO 😜 09:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, I have read G7 just fine, but it is irrelevant because this is not a speedy deletion request. The fact that you are apparently unable to think of a reason why someone might nominate an article of their own for a deletion discussion without actually wanting it deleted speaks only of the paucity of your own imagination. Thankfully, the rest of us are not bound by your limits. Anyway, if you really are so stupid that you think someone saying "My personal opinion is not to delete the article" means they're requesting a speedy deletion, then I'll waste no more of my time on you I honestly don't see how I can help. Mr Potto (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (striking some unnecessary rudeness Mr Potto (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
If a creator of an article wants to generate discussion about keeping the article, that is what the talk page of the article is for. Only a moron would nominate their own article for deletion just to generate some discussion. As I said, please find any other time this has occurred, especially since it is guaranteed to make me laugh myself silly.
YO 😜 10:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmm, right at the start of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion it says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I don't see anything anywhere that says the creator of an article must not use AFD to request a deletion discussion and that they are only allowed to do it on the article talk page. I also can't find anywhere where it says article talk pages are where discussions about whether an article should be deleted or kept should be held. Or anywhere that says that if an article creator does start a discussion request at AFD then that is automatically taken as a G7 speedy deletion request. If you can find the policy pages that say any of that, I'll humbly apologize for my error. Mr Potto (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, @
Wikimandia:, after all this I see you have just tagged the article with a G7 speedy deletion request! For the last time, the article's creator has not requested speedy deletion! I have removed the G7 tag. Do not put it back, or you'll be seeing a request for admin action against you. Mr Potto (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Mr Potto, I noticed that, you have not at any point in this joke of an AfD, suggested keep or delete. Either contribute to this AfD or go somewhere else and be productive.
YO 😜 11:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption of AFD discussion. Mr Potto (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME
YO 😜 13:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Question and comments:
Are there any specific notability guidelines applicable here, or is it just
WP:GNG
?
I don't see this article as promotional as it is written in neutral language and isn't highlighting any specific institution in which one can study for this qualification.
I wonder if the contents should perhaps be merged with
Central Council of Homoeopathy and this title redirected to that? The Central Council of Homoeopathy does seem to be notable in its own right, and as part of that article then I'd think the diploma it awards would be of encyclopedic value even if it was not sufficiently notable for its own article. Anyway, that's just a thought and I'll come back to it later when more people have had chance to comment. Mr Potto (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (replacing with !vote below. Mr Potto (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC))[reply
]
  • Sure, I appreciate that. But Merge/Redirect is also a common accepted outcome at AFD, and I want to withhold any actual !vote until I've learned more and heard more opinions. Mr Potto (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. AfDs are
not a vote at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge and redirect the first couple of sentences with a note to the effect that homeopathy is almost universally regarded as a form of psuedoscientific quackery to
    WP:FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Changing vote to delete per Andy's comment below. I don't think this meets GNG. Beyond which the standard for notability is somewhat higher when the subject is FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Turtle appreciation is not a pseudoscientific form of medical quackery. Homeopathy is.
WP:FRINGE does not allow fringe subjects to be introduced without disclaimers. The article presents the degree in a way that is no different than a degree in veterinary science. That's a no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree; the fringe caharacter of the degrees subject is at one remove here. It's a real degree offered by a real academic institution, which is all the article states. Judgements on the subject are misplaced here - they can be had at the multiple links to homeopathy in the article. In the same way that not every mention of Scientology is an automatic promotion or legitimization and requires an immediate paragraph noting how that volcano hydrogen bomb thing doesn't really work that way, not every mention of homeopathy requires a disclaimer. - Anyway, I'll not be getting into this further and/or even touch any homoepathy-related article - too much rancor.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, kudos to Arun Kumar Singh for putting their article up for a vote in this manner.-- Elmidae (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Elmidae. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, Mr Singh has behaved most honorably in bringing his article here for others to judge, and the bad faith attacks he has suffered are shameful. Mr Potto (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. Nominating an article for deletion requires a proper nomination rationale - one that explains why Wikipedia policy supports deletion. 'Nominating' an article while arguing that the article shouldn't be deleted is a misuse of the AfD process. What should have occurred is discussions on the article talk page over the issues raised in this AfD - and at that point, if discussions couldn't resolve the issues, it would of course be open to someone who supported deletion to raise an AfD. An AfD is not a substitute for other methods of dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read
WP:AFD in its entirety, and what I get from it is that using AFD to start a discussion about whether an article should be deleted is precisely what it is for. I agree that a rationale is required, and the nominator provided one in saying that someone else thinks "this article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM". It seems to me that AFD is exactly the right forum to ask "Should X be deleted?" Mr Potto (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Contributors should base nominations on their own arguments, and not around "what someone else thinks" - they have no right to nominate an article on someone else's behalf unless they have been explicitly asked to. And if WP:AfD doesn't make this clear, it should. None of this mess would have occurred if proper procedures had been followed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello everyone, thanks for your time on this matter; I appreciate it (except for the non-civil & abusive language used). I am somewhat confident that the majority vote will be to either delete or merge it to another article. I am signing off for the day and perhaps by the time I wake up, this discussion would be closed and article deleted; hence my message now. For whatever its worth, I wish to put following for the record;
1) At any point in time I had no intention to introduce a non-worthy article to Wikipedia.
2) I respect the vote of the majority; either way and stand by the decision taken.
3) I personally was of the opinion that this topic was worthy of a page of its own due following reasons;
a) Courses are very well known, accorded by over 150 universities and colleges around the world (passes
WP:GNG
).
b) Several hundred thousand students hold this degree.
c) Tone was neutral and not promotional (I have written over 130 articles so I understand these issues well) .
d) Article was well referenced with primary (Government of India) and secondary (news reports from India and other countries) sources.
e) Pseudoscience: I don't really give this lot of importance to this argument simply due to the fact if this was the case, several hundred articles (including few good articles) would not have existed on Wikipedia.
f) These articles were not a
WP:SPAM
g) Does not fail
WP:TONE
h) This is NOT a
WP:FRINGE
since this is real degree, based on real law of the land and real people study it after paying real money and spend real time. This is NOT a "Questionable science = Hypotheses".
i) My main intent of spending my personal time on Wikipedia is to enhance, improve and maintain the quality and quantity of information. And with the same intent, I create every single page; especially if a) It has historic value and b) It has continuous value. In this case, this subjects had both.
j) The reason I did not make the articles a sub-section of the "Central Council of Homoeopathy" page was that these two subjects are more notable than the issuing authority itself. Personally, I did not even know my entire life that something like "Central Council of Homoeopathy" exists whereas I always knew what "Homoeopathy" and the two degrees are (just a layman opinion).
k) There is NO
WP:COI
as I have been accused of.
At this, I would like to thank
Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery under similar discussion that also requires voting. Once again, thank you for your time and I appreciate your votes. Cheers Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
An AfD is not a vote. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 'H'; Homeopathy is absolutely FRINGE. If a legal degree were granted in astrology it would be no less fringe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the broader subject does not necessitate an article about an accreditation that can be adequately covered in a sentence or two at the suggested redirect target.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 08:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery

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

Comment: Although I am neutral and also the creator of this page, I am still marking it for AfD as an editor feels that these article fails

WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please vote as deemed fit. Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: My personal opinion is not to delete the article and have merely nominated this as an editor "feels" that this article fails

WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please don't take my nomination OR comment as the recommendation (either way) and use your own judgment. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The comments above (about me, the 'other editor') are false. I indicated that the articles appear promotional and unencyclopedic, but did not say that it was

make a point, despite the fact that the redirects were fine as they were, as already indicated by five editors prior to the AfDs (myself, a third opinion respondent, two admins, and another reverting editor).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Is the point is to waste people's time?
YO 😜 08:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

ANI
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ore Cup

AfDs for this article:
Iron Ore Cup (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 would carry forward the deletion arguments made at the first AfD regarding notability and I would add further that this minor rivalry ended after only three seasons. Clearly fails

WP:GNG and the appropriate sports notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpearIt

SpearIt (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)

Unable to find substantive third party sources. Article reads largely like a

WP:NACADEMICS. --Non-Dropframe talk 02:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Article was deleted by

(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Swaf markup language

AfDs for this article:
Swaf markup 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)

Unable to find any third-party references to this newly-created markup language. It's just

how to. --Non-Dropframe talk 01:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. (

WP:NPASR). North America1000 02:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Selling England by the Pound Tour

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

An indiscriminate collection of information, either unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. No reason this needs to be a content fork of the parent album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk 11:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. According to

WP:NTOUR concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Peter Gabriel's costume for this tour has generated independent discussion, making the tour itself notable. if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See e.g. Without Frontiers: The Life & Music of Peter Gabriel By Daryl Easle. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-your-favorite-prog-rock-albums-of-all-time-20120725/7-genesis-selling-england-by-the-pound-0033753 Genesis: The Complete Guide to Their Music By Chris Welch. Ross-c (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google shows that the tour is commonly named using the title from this article. Ross-c (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:17, 3 May 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, Esquivalience t 04:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 01:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this tour of a major band seems perfectly notable, especially as there are references to it even today. [35], [36], [37], [38]. I'm not quite sure why nominator thinks it wasn't actually a tour.
    YO 😜 02:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I didn't say that, but rather I suspect Wikipedia and other places have coined this tour name as a
neologism and poor quality sources (one source you supplied is self published and one is a Wikipedia mirror) have picked it up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rik Mafield

Rik Mafield (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:MUSIC and GNG. Unable to find any non-trivial third party sources. --Non-Dropframe talk 01:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to National Academy of Inventors. I assume that this is the page that User:DGG is referring to. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technology and Innovation

Technology and Innovation (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 journey fails

WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Society Incompetent press release as submitted. This is in part a peer-reviewed journal, though the article omits to say so & thus omits the most important single fact about the publication. (The journal publishes both peer-reviewed non-specialized technical content, and non-peer reviewed communications and comment). It also omits such basic things as the year it started publication,the earlier title (Technology) and forgot to link to the publishing society. For good measure, the section of what it covers (worded inappropriately as what it solicits manuscripts on) is a very close paraphrase. Most of the contents is inappropriate and designed to make an impression. For scientific journals, we publish the names of the editors in chief, we do not publish names of the editorial board and the contributors--the list of such for a major journal would include most or even all of the notable scientists in that field in the world. . When we do include the names of distinguished people with articles here, we just link to their article here--we never specific the position or the field. Any journal can easily have a very distinguished board by promising to accept their papers. This particular journal is published as a offshoot or what is basically a very high class academic and industrial lobbying group, and the obvious thing to do is to merge it. It does not meet the current key standard for peer-reviewed journals of being indexed in a selective indexing service, and we have no specific standards for magazines--circulation data can help with those, but none is given. I note that the ed. is a declared paid editor, but I hope he learns how to do it properly. None of the volunteers here are happy to have to do the work to fix things for which he earns the money. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge The Worldcat entry is here [39], and shows that 2 libraries hold it, Library of Congress being one. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly redirect to Luis Rocha (disambiguation). The disambiguation page has two entries with an accent mark over the letter "i" in the first name "Luís", so a redirect is in order. The nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion in the venue of AfD. If desired, further discussion can occur at RfD. North America1000 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luís_Rocha

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

There are multiple people with Luis Rocha in the name, a disambiguation page was created rionbr (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue: As a redirect, this would be far better dealt with at

WP:RfD. PWilkinson (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HH Kratu Das Ji Maharaj

HH Kratu Das Ji Maharaj (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 per

WP:BIO. Only primary sources cited. Agtx (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1507 Vaasa

1507 Vaasa (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 doesn't seem to meet

WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Boleyn has about 255 AfDs for low numbered asteroids. All he cares about is CAT:NN and
    AfD is not cleanup. Deleting too many borderline asteroids is harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1385 Gelria

1385 Gelria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 1000-2000 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Could use some more eyes on this one ― Padenton|✉   17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉   17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. North America1000 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2504 Gaviola

2504 Gaviola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 May 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, ― Padenton|✉   17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

4080 Galinskij

4080 Galinskij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 4001–5000. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 4 May 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, ― Padenton|✉   17:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 03:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Muni 4

Muni 4 (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:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Muni 4 Raghavendra Lawrence Kanchana 3 Raghava Lawrence Raghava Lawrence's next
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination Withdrawn (

Non-Admin Closure
).

Mohammed Rateb al-Nabulsi

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

I can't find the

t@lk to M£ 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

B/C you are search in English. i am work on it to find good sources, i am translate the article from Arabic to English, stay tuned.ahmadPHD (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

t@lk to M£ 11:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete both. j⚛e deckertalk 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbor To Family, Inc.

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

No evidence of

WP:COI articles from the same 2 or 3 users. Closeapple (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn (

non-admin closure) ― Padenton|✉   21:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

1506 Xosa

1506 Xosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1888 Zu Chong-Zhi

1888 Zu Chong-Zhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or otherwise failing to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉   21:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1674 Groeneveld

1674 Groeneveld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 11:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Guacolda

1993 Guacolda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surel's Place

Surel's Place (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 for this small program DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A small program, but viable and on-going and unique to Idaho. kencf0618 (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Like Me (EP)

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

Articles only source is a faulty link to AudioCastle, an illegal download site. After searching, EP seems to be a fan-compiled mix of unreleased acoustic tracks. Azealia911 talk 01:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpiceyChisquare Izu

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

This article fails

WP:MUSICBIO. The subjects of this article have simply not gained significant coverage to warrant a stand alone article. Of the 10 references in the article, The Nation reference is the only reliable source. The remaining sources do not discuss the subject whatsoever. A google search of the subjects do not show notability. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luay Eljamal

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

Article about a non-notable self-published author. Fails

WP:BASIC - MrX 22:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 May 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, Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arian Romal

Arian Romal (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)

Singer who I can't find much notability for. Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails
    WP:NMUSIC. Only sources approaching subsatntial coverage are in the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet and are unsuitable per BLP (strangely they also say he is Iranian/Danish unlike the article which says Indian/Afghan). SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1775 Zimmerwald

1775 Zimmerwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets

WP:GNG. I suggest deletion or preferably redirect to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Kumoh National Institute of Technology

Kumoh National Institute of Technology (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)

Unsalvageably promotional content. I can't find reliable sources for verification either. It also seems to contain original research.

talk) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_17&oldid=1142625007"