Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 May	24 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Ossani

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

Subject fails

WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent sources. While his properties may certainly be notable, he does not inherit notability from them. Coverage about the properties does not automatically equate to coverage about the owner. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 16:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity page, fails GNG and any suitable SNG. Cavarrone 17:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are a few posts about him however he does not pass
WP:GNG
and the wikipedia article is copied word for word from another article. Agreed with Cavarrone and nominator.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Jakubiec

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

Nonnotable pop singer

talk) 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources outside passing mentions in sources of poor reliability. At best,
WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails to meet threshold for
WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 21:00, 29 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 Consensus to delete due to lack of notability.

Chillum 05:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Daniel M. Ritchie

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

Non-notable person, clearly fails

WP:PUFFERY, and BLP violations through unsourced content Joseph2302 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

What can I do to avoid deletion of this page? Would more credible research or sources be of assistance? I'm new to this and am willing to make whatever changes are necessary. Thank you in advance for any advice. TGCJKS197276 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry if I were you, you can always save it to your userspace for now (i.e. User:TGCJKS197276/Daniel M. Ritchie) because unless he gets more significant coverage (such as news) within the next few months, there's no saving the article. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7Delete no evidence of notability under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and the references that are there seem to be primarily PR or notices. The one book that is listed was self published using Create Space, and, According to WorldCat, held in only one library WorldCat book entry. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "2014 Personal Trainer of the Year" is the only thing that looks like it might give some notability to the subject, but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. You'd think that an article about a notable person with a medicine related Ph.D. could have better sources than the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. —
talk) 04:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. In the interest of disclosure for the panelists commenting here, the creator, TGCJKS197276, is a paid editor for both this article and the one on Cody Sipe. Agricola44 (talk) 17:37, 28 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) 08:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Sipe

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

Biography of a non-notable person, who fails

WP:PUFFERY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or Userfy - Notable person with bad references. Page should stay but the references should be improved upon. --☣Anar chyte☣ 00:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the references this week and get them up to par. Am I responding to these correctly? This has been an extremely confusing process and I appreciate your assistance User:Anarchyte Thank you! TGCJKS197276 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and the references that are there seem to be primarily PR or notices. The one book that is claimed to be a best seller on Amazon was self published using Create Space, and, According to WorldCat, held in only one library WorldCat book entry. The other publications listed in WorldCat are mainly training videos. Analysis of his citation record is complicated because there is another CL Sips who works on mentoring of adolescents and is quite possible notable; the 1 paper I found in GS (and for which is is only one of an number of authors) ," Proposal for a New Screening Paradigm.." has only 31 citations. GS shows that really important articles in this field have 1000s of citations. We should hunt up the researchers writing these and write article on them. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have evidence for passing
WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. To add to the above, WoS shows he has written many papers, none of which have been cited a single time. The paper David mentioned above has 14 citations, but Sipe is neither corresponding nor first author. References are almost all web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Update I am working on the citations over the next couple of days. I'm trying to get the article up to par and will be citing the WoS papers as well. Thank you all for your time and for the assistance. TGCJKS197276 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the interest of disclosure for the panelists commenting here, TGCJKS197276 is a paid editor for both this article and the one on Daniel M. Ritchie. Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome, which looks reasonably clear at this point, but for me this implies that we should not userfy this article, just delete it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolyn Ann Smith

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

notability criterion, and that's not present here. Delete unless the sourcing can be properly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable individual; article is agitprop. Quis separabit? 20:59, 29 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 due to issues with original research and notability.

Chillum 05:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

List of non-national representative teams in men's football

)

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

The criteria of the list is original research. The actual list is not a distinct category but a mixture of county teams, semi-autonomous regions and other association sides. There is no clear encyclopedic reason for the article. Eckerslike (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, weakly agree delete. The content is a collection of material that could be listed elsewhere (

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep but tighten criteria. It seems legitimate to have a list of the main non-FIFA organisations (such as
NF-Board, Confederation of Independent Football Associations, etc) and their member teams broken down by the organisation(s) they are a member of. Although it's possible that this info might go in the relevant article Non-FIFA international football. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as
WP:OR, complete lack of clarity as to what "non-national representative team" means. Could essentially mean anything and requires no form of official approval. Additionally, many of the links here are not to an article on a representative team but to the people / area that they claim to represent. Elements could be used in other articles as noted above but this article is too vague to be encyclopedic. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for same reasons as above. Qualification for the list is vague and at the discretion of its editors, which makes it very much non-encyclopedic; and any subset of the list which is encyclopedic already has its own article. Aspirex (talk) 11:47, 28 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 The concerns brought up by the nominator were not shared by the participants of the debate.

Chillum 05:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Miss Suriname

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

Promo, hardly sourced and the three sources given are all related, not independent conform

WP:RS The Banner talk 19:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's not promotional, it's encyclopedic, stating the history of the event sinthe the 1950s. Also it's a national event affiliated with Miss Universe which is one of the Big Four international beauty pageants. Lack of sources does not mean lack of notability, I suggest the OP read the pertaining guideline again. Anyway, there are sources in the article. Kraxler (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are sources but all related to the subject. That does not proof the notability as that requires independent sourcing. And now you start about Miss Universe: it is just a local preliminary round. The Banner talk 18:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A horrible nomination. If you can't find Dutch sources, you don't know what Google is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, what I see are related sources or sources about the contestants. Not about the pageant. The Banner talk 09:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I added are articles about the winners of the pageant, which are covered annually in Surinamese news sources, because this is their national pageant.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:25, 31 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 delete G3 by MelanieN. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traveller Nation

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

No indication of importance Rberchie (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G3 and could easily go for A7 as my searches even the most simplest (one browser search couldn't even find one link) found absolutely nothing so I have to believe this is a joke, also considering the fact the article simply says The Traveller is about travelers. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 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 keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Anna Kay Akana

)

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

They don't necessarily meet

primary sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Note that Youtube postings authorized by the creator of the work are, like other
self-published sources, reliable as sources about the creator. Moreover, they are reliable (albeit primary) sources about their own existence and content. They are probably also reliable for their metadata, such as number of views and rankings within Youtube. Those seem to be the sorts of things that they are being cited to support in this article, and would properly be used in any article about a noted producer of Youtube content. None of that proves notability here, of cpourse. But the article should not be deleted because of its use of cites to Youtube for things which are properly so cited. DES ^(talk) 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, what I said above is that it's a primary source, so doesn't show notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also said that they "aren't
reliable sources", which, in the context that they are being cited, is incorrect. You are quite correct that they are primary sources, and so it is to other sources that we must look for evidence of notability. DES ^(talk) 21:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

That is pure wikilawyering. Please cut it out. --89.0.241.110 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Joseph2302 said "A and B". I objected to A, and gave my reasons. He responded with "But B is true" and I pointed out that my objection was only to the A part of the statement, while agreeing that B was true. More specifically, I agree that cites to Youtube and to Akana's web site are primary sources, and don't establish notability (although the metadata on the Youtube entries, showing number of views, is IMO relevant to notability. But I say that they are proper sources for the things for which they are cited, and their use should not cause people to react "Oh cited to Youtube. Delete!" If the independent secondary sources are sufficient to establish notability (as I believe that they are) then the presence of the Primary cites should be no problem. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as Wikilawyering. What I said was ambiguous, and I meant what they said below- this discussion clarififed that I meant that. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the operative word here is "most": The vast majority of sources in the article are primary sources. These sources cannot establish the notability of the article subject, nor the relative importance of specific content within the article. --89.0.235.97 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added several citations. I now see (completely ignoring Youtube & IMDB cites and other primary sources) cites to GoodReads, Mochi Magazine, MyDaily, New Media Rockstars (multiple articles),
The Huffington Post (multiple articles), Metro, Bustle, and MTV. None of these are "local", and there are more sources out there. I also see mentions from reliable sources about casting Akana in 2 separate films. Granted neither of these has appeared yet, but published reports of this sort add to the notability of someone largely known for youtube videos. The large reported viewership (now confirmed by multiple sources) also indicates notability IMO. Most promotional content seems to have been removed, and any that remains can be removed by normal editing. i see no policy-based reason to delete at this time. DES ^(talk) 22:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

None of the sources cover Akana herself in any significant detail as required by Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sorry, but she is simply not notable, and it is impossible to write more than a substub based on secondary sources such as they are available at the moment. --89.0.241.110 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that
The Huffington Post, and MTV) have covered teh subject and her works at some length, even if no one of them has an in-depth profile. This is quite sufficient to count as notability on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note also that an article need not be based wholly on secondary sources, as long as notability has been established, primary sources may be used to verify relevant content. Note further that Wikipedia articles about authors, film-makers, artists, singers, and other creative people often largely cover the body of their work, rather than being devoted to the artist him- or herself. This is such a case. Consider as an example C. J. Cherryh. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is multiply sourced, and notability in a niche sphere is still notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with
WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - person is notable enough. --☣Anar chyte☣ 06:26, 28 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. Sandstein 19:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portobello House

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

Not sure what prompted the creation of this article, cited mainly to a community website (the other sources do not seem to be directly about the house). The house/hotel seems unremarkable as a building, for example it is not listed. There must be plenty of notable houses and hotels in the Vale of Glamorgan but this does not seem to be one of them. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do nothing to establish notability and little to establish the text they are used to support.Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a location in google maps; it is a named bus stop. What type of location is it? In the U.S. pretty much any populated place is deemed Wikipedia-notable; does this fall in the same category?:Also it was a landmark before 1933 and may in fact be quite old. It is asserted above that the house is not a listed building but has that been checked?

I'm not sure if the following: British Listed Buildings Co Uk Wales, in St Bride's Major parish, in Vale of Glamorgan, should show it, if it were a listed building.
It is a "place of interest' Heritage Coast Walk of Ogmore.
It's a birding location glamorgan birds.

Note: There are other Portobello Hotels, e.g. the historic Portobello Hotel in

Dunedin, New Zealand which appears to be wikipedia-notable:http://portobellohotelandbistro.co.nz/11201.html, and there is a Portobello Hotel in the Notting Hill neighborhood of London.(http://www.portobellohotel.com/location.htm). --do ncr am 21:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a house, a building, of no architectural merit. It's not a listed building and, while an 80 year old building may be of interest in the USA or New Zealand, it is unremarkable in Europe. Sionk (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand one dates from 1867 or earlier, so is 148 years old. A 148-year-old establishment in Dunedin is more notable than the same in U.K., sure, because Dunedin was not settled by Europeans until 1844. But is not merely 80 years old. The one in Wales that this article is about is referred to as a well-known landmark in 1933, but I assume it is much older. Do you know how old it is? For that matter, do you know if it has architectural merit? Are you local, have you been there?

And the St. Bride's Major webpage linked in the article asserts it is at least somewhat interesting and connected to the historic community. I would expect there is more information about it available off-line; there is going to be less on-line info than if it were still a commercial establishment.

I still am not sure what is Wikipedia policy/practice on populated places in U.S., and also not for the U.K.

I don't care, hugely, but it does not seem obvious that this is a non-notable topic, and when in doubt I would say it should be kept for the time being. I would defer to someone actively developing the listed buildings in Vale of Glamorgan and/or specifically knowledgeable about the relative importance of places there. Perhaps the article creator, Dr. Blofeld, could comment on why he saw that it had merit. Dr. Blofeld's user page indicates an interest in historic country houses, and he had been editing in Wikipedia for 6 or 7 years before he created this article in 2012. Hmm, I see Dr. Blofeld was not given notice of this AFD, an oversight that can be fixed if he doesn't notice the ping and come comment. --do ncr am 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, I forgot to manually notify Dr B after my automated "Twinkle" failed. On the subject of notability, My rule of thumb is that something must have a reasonably strong suggestion of importance and, ideally, proof. Indeed, maybe Dr B can shed light on things. Sionk (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My house was built a long time before 1933, as were many thousands of others in my home town. For age to contribute to the notability of building in Britain you would have to be looking at several centuries. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: The Portobello House appears to have existed much earlier than 1933. do ncr am 16:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, and that was the point of my remark. For age to be the deciding factor it certainly wouldn't be enough for the house to have been built in 1833, and probably not in 1733, because there are many buildings of those ages in Britain still being used for the same mundane purposes for which they were built without having attracted great attention. I'm not saying that this article should be deleted, but merely pointing out that age is probably not a factor in any potential notability. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets
WP:N does it state that an article must be of interest to readers from all countries for it to be included in the encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 20:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The nomination is because the building is unremarkable with no evidence of notability, not because it is of no interest to readers in other countries. How exactly does it meet WP GNG? Sionk (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be more precise: I think it is marginally established or not established that the topic meets wp:GNG, but it is also not established that the building is unremarkable (it is hard/impossible to prove the negative, i.e. that there exist no sources explaining how it is remarkable). --do ncr am 05:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. It is likely that the importance of the Portobello House is covered in a 1988 book which has not been obtained by myself or anyone else commenting here so far. The book is available as an E-book for 10 Euros, and is titled ["Glamorgan Inventory: Vol.4 part 2 Farmhouses and Cottages". It is a work of the
RCAHMW, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. That book is used as a source in the listing text of the "Old Star Cottage", at British Listed Buildings: Old Star Cottage, St Bride's Major
.

Comparison of the small 1947 photo of Star Cottage in the "community website" to the small 2008 photo of Portobello House (at right here) suggests to me that the two are roughly equivalent: both are country houses, both have end-stack chimneys. The Star Cottage is a mid-1700's (Mid-C18) building; it was listed as a Grade II building in 1999. My hypothesis for now is that the Portobello House dates from the same time, and is perhaps not listed because it has less well-preserved historic integrity (the article notes that it has been modernized). The Star Cottage's listing reason was: "Listed as a picturesque cottage with well preserved external detail, the retention of the thatched roof being of particular interest. / Group value with Ogmore Castle, and contributing considerably to its setting."

It seems possible that Portobello House is one of the 42 residences of "major landowning families built between ca. 1540 and 1760" that are described in Volume IV Part i "The Greater Houses", and otherwise it is quite likely covered as one of the "secondary residences of those families, as well as houses of lesser landowners, ...[plus]... the houses of minor gentry and the tenant farmers, yeomen, and husbandmen, effectively the 'middle class' of rural society" (1,136 - 42 = 1094 houses) that are covered in Volume IV Part ii "Farmhouses and Cottages" (my quotes here are from the blurb within the 1988 book's description). Either way I expect it has been remarked upon.

Thus I currently believe that the Portobello House is or was a significant landmark and that sources to develop the article are available off-line, and I vote "Keep" for now. I would defer to person(s) who actually consult the Glamorgan Inventory book and/or who have more local/specific knowledge. --do ncr am 05:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is now beginning to get ridiculous. It's not your job to decide a building is noteworthy based on the fact its chimneys look similar to a nearby building that is listed. That is the job of Cadw or some other official body. You have no evidence that Portobello House is listed in this book, so the fact no-one here has read it is irrelevant. If Portobello House was listed, that could be easily proven by looking on Britishlistedbuildings.co.uk (and it isn't).

Quite the contrary to what you say, notability has to be proven. I've never ever participated in an AfD before when the primary argument is that it is "not established that the building is unremarkable". Sionk (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your having that view in good faith, but IMO it is not ridiculous at all. I pointed out an extremely relevant and acceptable off-line source that is very likely to have coverage of the topic, a building/place. It makes sense to decide Keep based on just that. Also this article did not appear among the first edits of a newbie; the author, Dr. Blofield, actually has contributed to 74 Featured Articles and more than 173 Good Articles per their user page now, and was already very experienced back when xe started this article. Also it would be far better to post a question about the article at the author's Talk page, rather than opening an AFD. If one is using the AFD process to force development of the article (and/or identification of sources within the AFD) by the author or others, i.e. demanding that notability be "proven", that is wrong:

WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP

.

I hope you will understand that I mean this cordially, but, in the same spirit, one could say "it's not your job" to decide the topic of an article about a place created by an experienced editor fails to meet Wikipedia notability standards. One could say such an AFD nomination about a place is either going to waste multiple editors' time or possibly cause a valid topic to be deleted only by bad luck. Bad luck would be:

1) if no one far away (like me) happens to be interested and is successful (one can argue whether I was successful or not) in delving around in on-line records,

2) if the author happens not to be available, and

3) if no one else local with access to off-line material about the place, at local libraries, is available to defend the article.

It is easy for all 3 elements of that bad luck to happen. And it is automatic that an AFD is going to consume the attention of multiple editors. But it is extremely rare for a very experienced editor to have made a mistake in assessing the notability of a place topic that they choose to write about. And if one does wonder whether the author has made a mistake, and in retrospect could see that the topic was not valid, it would be far better to just contact the author at their Talk page. Again, I do understand that some could have a different view. Where I am coming from is different. My view is informed from my experience especially with place articles mostly in the U.S., and my experience with AFD which I think is much too costly in terms of editors' attention (and also costly with its effect on authors ... less an issue for experienced authors, but still a mildly negative experience). --do ncr am 00:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't appreciate the lecture. I'm an experienced local editor too and I don't write articles about buildings in my area based on vague beliefs, but on at least some hard proof. Rather than try the "I'm a more experienced editor than you" personalisation, lets stick to the subject at hand. No-one, aboslutely no-one here has come up with one shred of hard evidence that this building is notable. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be patronizing. In the same way, I don't appreciate the lecture from you. On topic: given context, given one very relevant source identified but not obtained, and given the judgment of at least two editors (author and me) that there exists documentation to develop the article further, a reasonable person can conclude that, more likely than not, if the further research steps are taken, the notability of Portobello House will be conclusively established. You say it hasn't been proven, meaning 100% proven, or you simply are dismissing the identified two volumes of RCAHMW work. One volume is available to purchase for 10 Euros. We both appear to value our time poorly, that we don't take that step of further research which could resolve the issue (but might not). How about this: S and I agree to buy the RCAHMW volume for Dr. B, either of us paying upfront, based on a coin flip. Note Dr. B and wikipedia would benefit from Dr. B having that book. If it turns out that Dr. B finds "pretty good" evidence (i.e. material to develop the article that would seem pretty good to an uninvolved party), then S reimburses me if I paid or S absorbs the cost if S paid. If it turns out there's evidence pretty good evidence contrary to notability (i.e. it's pretty clear to uninvolved parties that the Portobello House ranks really far down in terms of notability of buildings in the area), then I absorb cost or reimburse S. If it's inbetween then the payer gets reimbursed for half the cost. Seriously I suggest we do that. Seriously I mean that AFDs like this implicitly value people's time at near-zero value. (By "AFDs like this", i mean: about places, where a local and experienced editor once judged the place notable and reiterates that later when asked to reconsider, rather than acknowledging a mistake.) Either way, right now we have to agree to disagree: I think the evidence presented here (informed opinions, identification of promising very relevant source, etc.) suggesting it is notable, you do not. :::::sincerely, --do ncr am 03:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RCAHMW publication is a red herring. There's nothing anywhere to suggest this building would be covered in it ('Glamorgan' covers most of South Wales and Portobello House doesn't seem to be either a cottage or a farmhouse). Even you have said yourself, it is impossible to prove a negative i.e. that Portobello House is not notable. The point of an Afd is to provide conclusive, positive evidence that the subject is notable. Sionk (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I live in the Vale of Glamorgan, and no, there's not plenty of notable hotels and country houses here. Not many at all. I'd say compared to some of the ones I've started it's not as notable and not listed, but I still believe it's a notable house on the western perimeter of the Vale. The main reason I believe is that historically it was a residence of notable landowners in the area, in fact I'm sure I've seen a Sheriffs of Glamorganshire list at it being cited as the seat. There should be material on this house in the Welsh library, those monuments books should have something on it. At worst a landmarks section in Merthyr Mawr Sand Dunes mentioning the house should suffice. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, I am glad you were available to comment. Per my comments above, I interpret your statement as a credible assertion that this topic is notable, by your judgment as an experienced Wiki-author and as an informed local. Per above, you are revisiting it and saying it was not an obvious mistake. Thanks. About the building not being listed, I surmise that it must have been modernized too much to remain eligible. I have imperfect understanding of the listing process in the U.K., but I understand buildings can be listed with or without owner's approval, unlike the corresponding process in the U.S. The building could have been notable in the past, as the "seat" of a sherriff or otherwise (and then covered in sources that continue to exist now), and

"Notability is not temporary". It would be good, though, if you could plan to add more to this article, e.g. to get better pics whenever you might be nearby, or e.g. to resolve to get to a library, since this article has been questioned. Despite my replying to the AFD nominator above, they do have a point. :) --do ncr am 00:22, 27 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. See User:Varmapak/workspace/Auto Johnny. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Johnny

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

Per

talk) 14:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete As per wikipedia policies, it should only have an article once the shooting begins, so this article must be deleted.- Supdiop ^talk 04:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Auto Johnny Puri Jagannadh Ram Charan Chiranjeevi Anjali Devi Sri Prasad

Delete form article space and return as a draft to well-intended author
WP:NFF. However, it does have enough coverage[1][2][3][4] so it CAN be spoken of until then in article on director Puri Jagannadh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed (as nominator) - I prefer this option to delete alone.
talk) 09:37, 27 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) 14:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ShoFIGHT

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

Non-notable MMA organization. Regional feeder Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor MMA organization with no coverage that meets GNG.Astudent0 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MMA organization with no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 28 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) 19:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ischar

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

Artist definitely exists, but seems to not be notable enough for Wikipedia. I found a ton of mentions of his work, but nothing approaching "significant coverage" of him or his works. Primefac (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found significant coverage in the following publications on HighBeam and Google News (2 of which are in the article):
- Burton, Johanna (1 March 2012). "Doug Ischar". Artforum. Retrieved 23 May 2015 – via HighBeam. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
- Campeau, Sylvain (1 January 1996). "Doug Ischar (exposition)" (in French). Parachute Contemporary Art. Retrieved 23 May 2015 – via HighBeam. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
- Grabner, Michelle (1 December 2009). "Doug Ischar: GOLDEN". Artforum. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
- [5] - be cautious with this source, because it is a tabloid; however the coverage is not on a topic that tabloids are inaccurate at (e.g. serious medical studies).

Three full sources + a paragraph are usually just enough. Esquivalience ^t 17:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of major museums that have exhibited his work is enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage & big exhibitions Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 30 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, defaulting to keep however the article needs better sourcing.

Chillum 05:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Triposo

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

Unreliable sources that are essentially press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has already been up for speedy deletion and was declined for this reason: "Decline - Speedy is not appropriate, as there are multiple reliable sources, like Engadget, that dedicate articles to it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy deletion might not be appropriate, but regular deletion seems to be. First two references are subject's own website. Third is a traffic ranking (which is minimal - showing lack of use). The fourth appears to be effectively a press release. That leaves two relatively old articles that could be legit or could be disguised press releases. Not enough to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's marked as {{refimprove}} for a reason.Anarchyte (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have since updated the page, it now has more references and information since last update. Anarchyte (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 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, Davewild (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This TechCrunch article is well within reliability standards, but I'm afraid that's the best RS the app can garner at this moment. Inclusions in "(phone model) Survival Guide" books, "the (number) apps for (purpose)" lists and such is not establishing very sturdy notability. Some mentions in informatics/information engineering journals/papers are nice, but sadly they are little more than passing. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: four
WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 12:29, 30 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 that the improved article shows that they meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Plowright

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Nearly all of her film appearances are uncredited. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Only reference is IMDB, minor actress with no notable coverage. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches (News, Newspapers Archive, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing aside from a few results from Books. Not a particularly notable actress with only minor roles (nurse, villager, etc.) through the years and no significant or break-through ones. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Actress from the "golden age" of Hollywood, dozens and dozens of roles, if minor, in significant films. Adequate sources to meet WP:GNG. However, article itself stinks and is inaccurate. ~~Will fix~~ Have expended and sourced properly. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rather misleading filmography, don't you think? Seeing as only a few films are explicitly listed as uncredited, whereas she was only credited in four of them: Partners of the Plains, Raffles, Summer Magic and 36 Hours. Also, cast listings aren't very useful for satisfying GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "misleading": Pulled several off her bio in the New York Times, which didn't designate roles as credited or uncredited...found only two where the word "uncredited" appeared, elsewhere, and noted those. (IMdb either is or is not "reliable" - I've heard both - ?) Clearly she was a character actor who played many small bit parts - old lady, librarian, nurse, maid, etc... but frankly, to make a living acting for 30+ years when she was cast as "older" from the outset is pretty impressive by itself. I expanded the article to address the "only reference is IMdb" concern you raised. Seems adequate to me. I'll keep digging around to see if I can find more. I'm finding this a rather interesting project. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, that's not a New York Times article, just its mirror of AllMovie (note the copyright at the bottom). IMDb is almost always reliable as to credits and "uncredits", based on the many movies I've watched, but not for bios or trivia. Quantity (lots of bit parts) doesn't equal quality/notability/satisfying
IBDb,[6] all I can find that's not just a cast listing is one line about her in a 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle review of the Broadway play And Now Good-bye: "Hilda Plowright, as the clergyman's wife, turns in an excellent example of the woman who is completely exasperating without meaning to be anything but pleasant." Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I don't know how many bit actors have as long a filmography or as many credits as she has, I'm finding her quite interesting. I don't know if anyone has accumulated such lists and I can't engage in OR or SYNTH to do so, but seems to me she's meeting a minimum threshold. Her librarian character in The Philadelphia Story is mentioned in a couple different books. I mean seriously, she does top

Lawnchair Larry or some Cricket player in Manchester who played one season in 1979 or something. Where we are looking at people who could be forgotten by history yet really were rather remarkable, I think the wiki can handle the bandwidth of keeping this one. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not the job of an encyclopedia to generate notability, only to record it. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, upon reviewing her filmography, I think she is notable. I also think that WP needs to address its problems with systemic bias and this is a particularly good example - an older, rather plain-looking woman who made a living in film by not being a porn star. Perfect! Montanabw ^(talk) 16:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't reach Hollywood until 1938 when she was 48. Even on Broadway she was 35 and over. At 26 she was successfully playing the lead in romantic comedy. Looks as if she was born too soon and went to Hollywood far, far too late. But she did pretty well all the same! Thincat (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To make such a living with so many roles in a world that valued youth and beauty, she did extraordinarily well! Montanabw ^(talk) 02:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appearing (credited!) in many Broadway plays in named roles is in itself enough for me. There would have been plenty of coverage at the time even if we can't find it online now. I know
WP:NACTOR does not say this counts but our guidelines are not perfect and that is why they say that exceptions exist. Thincat (talk) 17:09, 14 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 08:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is what I could find with Newspapers.com [[7]]. The others were just mentions of her being in various cast lists. Cowlibob (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you. I've found 32 references to her in the British provincial press (paywalled). Some merely mention her name. I've thrown into the article a complete (complete, until it tails of into extraneous matters!) review of her in a title role (the review is long out of copyright). I'm not saying all this should be in the article but it shows what was being written at the time. Thincat (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I wish I could stop looking into this!). I suspect she was a really good actor. I've found a newpaper that lists her along with only two others (Harvey Clark and Russell Hayden) in Partners of the Plains. But, oh dear, as "Aunt Martha". That's not the way to the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Thincat (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Voting keep twice!~~Mild rant: Article has been significantly expanded since original AfD, notability is now clearly established....why relist? Montanabw ^(talk) 05:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not just about the amount of coverage you can find, but the quality of the information. I have searched on line and find numerous books that confirm the information that is now on the file. She had over 60 film credits, but those credits, while they might be for non-starring roles were with major stars and directors. Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine in "Suspicion" directed by Alfred Hitchcock; Norma Scherer, Rosalind Russell and Joan Crawford in the "Women" direction of George Cukor; Betty Davis and Claude Raines in "Now Voyager"; Rita Hayworth and Burt Lancaster in Separate Tables; Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn under the direction of George Cukor in "Philadelphia Story". Is it remotely logical she would repeatedly be hired to work with major stars if she was not skilled? Is it remotely logical that the likes of Hitchcock or Cukor, would hire her? The facts of her longevity in a notoriously fickle industry and that she has many, many credit with major figures speaks to her notability. Everyone is not a star, but stars would not exist without the other cast, unseen cameramen, editors, etc. that go to building the star's fame. Those contributions matter, IMO. At the very least, she meets GNG, multiple secondary sources confirm her longevity and skill. SusunW (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Notability has been established. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now well-sourced. Notability established through well-accepted sources. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:33, 31 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. Nakon 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azotti

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

Article that comes across as a coi-as a note the coi/notability tags have been removed. One of the page contributors is even named Yuri Denisenko which is the guys real name! Wgolf (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wgolf! Hope Your Doing Is well! I noticed your instructions to Azotti! Given the foregoing your comments! I do not have anything to Azotti! I am only authorized to edit this article! The article is in the process of further revision! If you do not pay attention to? The News! Articles! And other important secondary information which indicates that Azotti is a public active person, is also present in paragraph "References" "See Also" and "External Links"! Which has its own logo, fan groups in different social networks, who attends various events and also creates electronic music in his studio! You must understand that this page was created by Azotti's music fans! I also try to understand what you need? You also need to understand! the article will also be filled, and improve on! All The Best! Post Scriptum! In paragraph! "See also" added minor important sources that support professional activity and public Azotti! For this reason for the removal of the article, I do not see! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.122.22 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete No independent coverage.
talk) 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Dear Staszek Lem If you look closely! In the Clause "References" from Azotti Page! Azotti joint Official collaboration with "Tuborg" (Carlsberg Group) http://sostav.ua/publication/tantsuyushchee-pivo-v-pryamom-efire-54891.html Also Big independent coverage for Azotti's Music http://topdj.com/news/14309 independent coverage For In Search In Sunrise on DJMAG Site with Azottis Track! http://djmag.ca/blog/2014/05/06/richard-durand-releases-isos12-tracklist/ Azottis Track in Compilation Armada Music http://www.armadamusic.com/news/2015/03/cosmic-gate-wake-your-mind-sessions-001-out-now/ all these independent coverage in Clause "References" "See Also" and "External Links"! As well Azotti, has participated in many Radio show in the World! As well there are plenty of Azotti Fan Group and Fan Pages on the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.122.22 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respected! Wgolf Staszek Lem • Gene93k Thank you for your marking! But given all your markings, I do not agree! I think that the main sources, secondary sources, legal links, other interesting facts and footnotes in this article is more than enough! I consider that the place to be this article on Wikipedia, this real person, he makes music, and facts about his achievements very much! He is also a very popular person in the world of electronic music! Look at the fact that in Ukraine it is in this area one of the finest! Also look at the fact that, in the article should not be too much complex information! And the average user, it will be understood what is at stake in this article! Look for other articles on electronic musicians that are on Wikipedia, and they do not have a "News" section, or "Book"! "Secondary sources that suggested they already added". Let's Take into account that the person is still alive and this article also will be filled with information on the extent of his achievements in life in the future! So, and on this I propose that would remove "Articles for deletion/Azotti (section)" This article was created by his fans and it's been said that there is no doubt that this person is important! Do not forget! That the first proposal for the deletion this article of many months ago! It was satisfy and removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.122.22 (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Significant in Ukraine. Sources are independent from the subject article. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Independent sources are present. KISS FM, Topdj.ua - these are significant Ukrtainian radio. Also I see thedjlist.com, Armada music. Morover, the fact of collaboration with Black Hole Recordings is significant by itself. --A1 (talk) 21:15, 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 08:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Independent sources in the Azotti article are well represented. Also has a clear relationship with an article about Black Hole Recordings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.36.132.47 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Korotash

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

WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate that
WP:POLITICIAN criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per user:Rpclod.Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability.
talk) 13:32, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Burrows (politician)

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

WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate that
WP:ANYBIO criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per user:Rpclod.Pincrete (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet the criteria of
talk) 14:12, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Tardif

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

WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate that
WP:ANYBIO criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per user:Rpclod.Pincrete (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's not him being a city politician in a small city that bothers me, it's the fact that he hasn't received any significant coverage.
talk) 13:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Her/she, just for the record. 18:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is also a consensus to move this to

non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Alexis Murphy abduction

)

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

This is not notable, as I have not heard of this before, and besides, the article is written poorly, in the style of a newspaper article, and no legitimate attempt has been made to fix it. This article's deletion has been long overdue. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, TNT, rename → Murder of Alexis Murphy. Even though they haven't found her body, she is presumed dead and a man was convicted of her death. This case received sufficient long-term coverage, in national sources, for it to meet GNG.
YO 😜 06:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - the event is unfortunate, but there is no difference from similar crimes and nothing to suggest notability. Wikipedia is
not news.--Rpclod (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete All local news sourcing from
chatter) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
There is non-AP coverage outside of local media − CBS News, ABC News/Good Morning America, International Business Times, ABC News, subject of Nancy Grace show on CNN, NY Daily News, NBC News, IBT followup, Huffington Post etc
Delete: Per Rpclod. Just another tragic event that happens far too often. CitiV (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is kept it'll need a LOT of editing to bring it up to par with other crime articles. As far as notability goes, I can't say anything just yet. I live around the area where this happened and it was pretty big news while it happened, especially when Taylor tried to finger
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I've cleaned it up.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and rename to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Since I did clean it up so thoroughly, I would recommend that this be revisited by anyone who voted delete. They might still hold the same opinion, but I know that a poorly written article will be more likely to be deleted than a well written one, regardless of the type/amount of sourcing.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I greatly appreciate you improving the article. However, for now, I will stand by my reasoning, as well as everyone's reasoning, for why this article will be deleted. This event is still just one of many tragic events that happen too often, and there is nothing I am seeing that distinguishes it from other cases. I am more open to keeping this article if people begin reconsidering, though. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me it was that it'd received national coverage from CNN, Nancy Grace, and the like. Most murder cases don't receive this at all, so that's why I'm leaning towards keep.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl's updates. It is a narrow thing, but I think the case for notability is there. No objection to the rename. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Per User:Tokyogirl79's improvements and reasons.Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and work on the grammar. The grammar is bad, and it does need improvements.
talk) 00:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Tons of sources, links to other articles. Anynobody(?) 18:50, 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 keep. Discussion regarding ways to move forward with the article, along with a potential page move, can be further discussed on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free will in antiquity

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

As seen at

synthesis of research unsupported as a whole by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom ----Snowded ^TALK 04:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and rewrite? Free will in antiquity is a perfectly valid subject. The main sources are Aristotle's sea-battle problem in
De Fato. Unless there is another article already on this subject? Peter Damian (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Keep possibly as Greek philosophical views on free will, or something like that. I appreciate that one of the philosophers was from Alexandria, but his name is Greek, so that he was clearly an ethnic Greek, not an ethnic Egyptian. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is a cookie-cutter one based mainly on the idea that this was written by a particular editor. There's no detailed consideration of the particular topic but it is easy to demonstrate that it is notable. For example, see A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought by
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Alternative rename (I voted above) Free will in ancient philosophy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Excellent idea and I support.Peter Damian (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, support rename to
YO 😜 16:41, 30 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. Sandstein 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shiria Khatun

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

The subject does not reach notability criteria Aetheling1125 08:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a local councillor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing
WP:POLITICIAN. Quis separabit? 21:02, 29 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) 14:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Snook

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

No evidence of significant coverage per

primary source. I can't verify the Hough (1994) source, but if it says no more than the other sources, notability is still in question. Note This Google Book entry is a bastardized version of the Wikipedia article itself ("killed in a fist fight" becomes "slayed in a clenched hand brawl"). --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - the only two authoritative references show that a Morgan Snook was a pilot for James Cook but nothing more. Another is a deadlink, another a wikipedia article, and the last a genealogy page. None are authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per well-thought out rationale by @Rpclod which I adopt. Quis separabit? 13:15, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Bong

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

Non-notable and multiple searches including News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam all found nothing. There is simply nothing to improve this article or establish notability with significant and in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No
reliable sources are given and the article does not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:26, 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 08:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No
reliable sources are given and the article does not indicate notability.Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 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 Speedy deleted as

talk) 17:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Kharkiv Airlines

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

No reference and probably csd#a7 TeaLover1996 (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This page has been deleted twice. Once A7 once expired PROD. Deletion Log Jbh ^Talk 10:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
talk) 15:07, 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 redirect to

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Bellygunner

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

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

No evidence of
WP:NBAND. The only 'notable' member is Gabe Nelson, who himself has questionable independent notability and might be best redirected to Cake (band). But Bellygunner itself doesn't appear to have garnered much coverage even in Sacramento: aside from a few brief mentions of appearances in clubs and festivals, this piece is mainly about Nelson and his ties to Cake, not Bellygunner. Assuming Nelson is notable, a plausible alternative would be redirecting to his biography. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 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 00:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gabe Nelson as multiple searches (News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam) found nothing significant and notable aside from this and this. Later, I can search to see if Gabe Nelson's article can be improved, if not, that can probably be moved to Cake (band). SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 17 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 08:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gabe Nelson per above.
talk) 11:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Gabe Nelson As above, the band fails
WP:NBAND, none of the other members are notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghugni

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

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

Not a single reference yet C E (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a recipe, no assertion of notability, and no citations/references. Only reason i did not speedy delete it was somebody suggested a merge. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have copy edited the article, and removed the recipe as per
WP:NOTRECIPE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets
WP:GNG, albeit on the weak side from what I can find in available online sources. This is a very common dish in Kolkata, and it's likely that more offline sources exist that cover this topic. Source examples include: Poughkeepsie Journal and this book source. Additional options include merging to Chotpoti and/or List of Indian dishes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is a very common dish in eastern India but finding reliable sources might be difficult. It is a type of curry and is also known as "Guguni". Lakun.patra (talk) 11:15, 21 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) 07:44, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Classic Struggle

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

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

Another non-notable and obscure metal band with no significant or in-depth coverage. Multiple searches including Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary and browser all found nothing aside from News (a few links but nothing significant). Apparently, the band is no longer active and only released two albums, not notable and nothing to improve. I would also like to nominate the following album articles as they are not notable aside from one review (Allmusic for Feel Like Hell):

Feel Like Hell

Bring Back The Glory

SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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, Davewild (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on a google search and what is in the article, there is no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lead sentence says that it has a heavy influence on thrash metal in South Carolina, yet there are no secondary reliable sources to back it up. Not notable. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to verify any of the info in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:19, 28 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1412 Lagrula

1412 Lagrula (edit | 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 to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

redir to list.
talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's both the subject of a single-object study [8] and of some historical interest as part of early discoveries of asteroid groups with closely related orbits [9]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 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 00:40, 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, Davewild (talk) 07:31, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1954 Kukarkin

1954 Kukarkin (edit | 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 to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, deletion is not an option per NASTRO. It is either keep or re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redir to list.
talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: It has a long rotation period of 136 hours. -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In this case I think only having one study on this object [10] is (barely) sufficient, because it identifies an unusual property of the object, its slow rotation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 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 00:39, 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, Davewild (talk) 07:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One hour translation

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

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

Does not meet
talk) 23:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Something to take into account is that this was originally deleted at
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't remember too much about their specific styles, but I know that many socks will try to re-create an article under a different capitalization in order to avoid detection. If this is the case here, then it looks like it may have worked.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I requested history merge from talk) 05:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, my comment was too brief. I meant that a SPI clerk could ask me via email for confidential details so there would not be outing on view. —
talk) 12:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

~~As the writer of the article I would like to add the following points to the discussion: (1) The article does meet the~~
~~talk~~) I understand that you're not satisfied with the article and I can work to make it better. But please don't delete it! I will also include the new sources in the article. Now for the list of sources you need to consider:HelenBay (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
[reply]

Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2014/09/17/want-people-to-download-your-app-translate-it-into-chinese/

NBC Bay Area (watch the video): http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/Skype-Translator-Multilingual-Skype-Translates-As-Users-Speak-285900381.html

The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10751719/Harry-Styles-tweets-translated-into-Spanish-and-Italian.html?fb

Another coverage by The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10672404/Sochi-translation-service-to-launch-in-UK.html

Fast Company: http://www.fastcompany.com/3026203/fast-feed/this-twitter-account-will-translate-your-tweets-during-the-olympics-for-free

Internet Retailer: https://www.internetretailer.com/2013/07/09/underme-boosts-conversions-web-site-translations

Fox News: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1454752240001/is-your-business-lost-in-translation/?#sp=show-clips

Fortune Magazine: http://fortune.com/2012/01/27/the-great-mediterranean-executive-migration/

and there are plenty more, just search and you'll find out yourself.HelenBay (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from
WP:CORP
: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The sources I mention above are not trivial or accidental mentions. Hence, according to Wikipedia guidelines the article should exist.
Brianhe The other points that you mention can and should be discussed but they are not relevant to the fact that according to guidelines the article should exist.HelenBay (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)— HelenBay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
~~I'm going to improve the article so it meets the sources criteria.~~
~~Brianhe~~ ~~please reconsider, taking into account the arguments above.HelenBay (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)~~ Striking out sockpuppet per check user evidence. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reference 1 is a
self-promotional.--Rpclod (talk
) 19:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC

Do not delete - I have added the entry, added new information and references which I believe that are reliable. I think that the unique platform should have an entry, because there are more than a few references online reviewing the company. AnnaPaw (talk) 08:47, 21 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) 07:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following my edits on the entry's text and citations, it no longer reads as promotional, from my point of view. I wanted to check what the next steps are?AnnaPaw (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Bay was struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reuvengrish, which the closing admin should have a look at before closing. Davewild (talk) 07:34, 31 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. Do to a lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy relist (or a
bold redirect). Davewild (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Marianna Zorba

Marianna Zorba (edit | 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:
WP:NSINGER. Quis separabit? 21:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect: to
T@lk 02:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:28, 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) 07:19, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aroma Group of Companies

Aroma Group of Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of importance or significance. Only article reference is to company about-us page. Can’t find any reliable sources. —
t c 07:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Looked yesterday for sources and couldn't find any. IMO this should have been speedied as an
A7. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company's own "About us" page is an incoherent mess. Doubtful that any notable business of any considerable size would allow such shoddy communications on its own web page. - CoLocate (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:COMPANY. Faizan (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Absolutely not notable with my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding nothing until the end with a few links here and here along with here. Simply not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 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. Davewild (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bon (programming language)

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

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

Article consists of two factoids from a single source that only contains passing mention of the article's topic. This is all that any one of us has been able to find out about this programming language Bon since 2004. I conclude that the topic is not notable and suggest redirecting to either B (programming language) or Ken Thompson. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 05:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very minor language that no-one is advocating for further use. However as it forms part of Ken Thompson's work and thus the predecessor history of C, it's significant in a historical sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's invoking
WP:INHERIT. I haven't seen proof of the significance of the language. Ritchie in fact calls it "unrelated" to B and C. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a rather pathetic Summoning Of The Mighty Allcaps, even though such is only to be expected at AfD. An article on Woofles, Ken Thompson's pet dog is INHERITed. A language that formed part of Thompson's corpus of work is notable because of its place in the corpus, not because it's coincidentally linked to Thompson. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a correct invocation of a guideline. What do we know about this language, other than that Thompson designed it, wrote an unpublished memo about it, and then moved on to other projects? What makes it deserve a Wikipedia article, despite there being no sources to attest to its significance? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Ritchie reckons it influenced B, which in turn... (you know the rest). Of the two of you, I'm believing him. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go over Ritchie's "Development of the C Language". Here's what it says: "Its [B's] name most probably represents a contraction of BCPL, though an alternate theory holds that it derives from Bon [Thompson 69], an unrelated language created by Thompson during the Multics days. Bon in turn was named either after his wife Bonnie, or (according to an encyclopedia quotation in its manual), after a religion whose rituals involve the murmuring of magic formulas." That's all Ritchie said about Bon, and the reference [Thompson 69] is to an "undated AT&T Bell Laboratories internal memorandum (ca. 1969)". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey Peter, nice to see that you're not having your usual login troubles for this XfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Talk:C (programming language)/Archive 4 has previous discussion regarding the purported Bon→B→C heritage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of languages are created, not only does this one lack demonstration of notability there is not even a claim of notability in it. I would happily reconsider if evidence of significance was provided.
Chillum 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Inherited notability doesn't really cut it. It has to stand on its own without a connection to a famous person or notable topic. It's already mentioned at the article for B, so there's nothing to merge. Google Books results look mostly like Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only things we can say about it are from that one line in Development of the C Language, then it's not independently notable. It might be mentioned in our article on C but does not warrant its own separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Instead of being (famous person)'s pet dog, it is (famous person)'s pet project of the past, but it does not make it any less inherited. If this language did significantly influence C (which in turn blah blah blah) at the point that it becomes historically significant surely there are sources out there that say so; where are they? Tigraan (talk) 13:12, 27 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. Since the improvements to the article there is a consensus that the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goat Meat Pepper Soup

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

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

Food notability is unclear (many insignificant foods and recipes would meet
WP:GNG); however, there is no distinct heritage or significance for this soup to merit a standalone article. Esquivalience ^t 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I was just about to
how-to content and possible copyright violation. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Is there a policy "WP is not a cookbook"? Or is that covered by "not a how-to"?Borock (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO, so yes. Adam9007 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - FYI it's a Nigerian speciality. Search results yields 14,000+ results, with many saying it's a staple of Nigerian food esp weddings. I don't know the cookbook guidelines but seems like a perfectly notable recipe, if it can be properly sourced.
YO 😜 01:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
What about the possible copyright violation? Adam9007 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the bulk of the article is a list of ingredients, I don't think it would be too hard to fix.
YO 😜 02:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If the article was about the importance of this dish in Nigerian culture, instead of about how to cook it, I would vote to keep.Borock (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article has been rewritten to correct copyvio and
WP:NOTHOWTO problems. Versions of the article that were almost exclusively copyright violations have been revision deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – If not independently notable enough for a standalone article, this could be merged to List of soups. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
✉ 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – The article has been renamed to Goat meat pepper soup, to correct capitalization in the title. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Weakly meets
WP:GNG from sources found thus far in sources available online. It's likely that additional offline print sources exist. Source examples include [11], [12] (scroll down), [13], [14] (subscription required). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A well sourced article that passes
WP:GNG per NA1k. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:19, 29 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) 06:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Five Nights at Freddy's characters

List of Five Nights at Freddy's characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Do to the heavy activity and debate, Articles for Deletion is a better process than Proposed Deletion. No sources, no indication of notability. Safiel (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure fan-fiction things. Also falls under
talk) 00:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:VGSCOPE #6: The general reader would not find this of much use, nor would the absence of the list be even mildly detrimental to the general reader. I cannot also find coverage of the group covered by this list, only individual characters. Esquivalience ^t 00:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It looks like WP is being used to promote this project. One article on it should be enough until the movie is produced.Borock (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons said above. --☣Anar chyte☣ 02:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft instead of deletion. The creator must've put a lot of work into this and so I think this should be moved instead of deleted. --☣Anar chyte☣ 10:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly appreciate the creator's commitment to the project, for an article to be
WP:DRV. Mz7 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as mostly unsourced fan theories. Things that could be merged sourcedly are probably more than well mentioned at
Five Nights at Freddy's (series) and the three individual game articles. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I have tried to fix this article multiple times, but underaged users seem to prevent me from doing so.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As said above, attempts have been made to fix the article and make it more inline with Wikipedia's standards, but there has been continuous resistance from the article's original creator/key contributor, though in the end he was the one who decided to nominate this article for deletion. The truth is this article is made entirely from fancruft and theories, is not formatted in an appropriate style, and lacked any references/sources beyond a vague image from Deviantart. The game series itself is notable, but an article listing its characters is not, plus finding relevant sources has proved difficult since the only genuine source of information related to the characters comes from the games themselves or their creator Scott Cawthon. As an alternative, the characters introduced in each individual game could be covered in the game articles under the plot section. Evilgidgit (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Pure LISTCRUFT. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons.
talk) 21:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I originally endorsed the article's PROD. My comment was: "As with any article on Wikipedia, a list of fictional characters needs to be
WP:N. There is no evidence of that for this article. There is also a general agreement on the talk page that this article be deleted or merged." Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tossing my hat in here as I've had some interaction with this article prior. Seems to be made entirely of fancruft and listcrust as per above. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:16, 29 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_23&oldid=1142624937"~~