Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Jacobowitz

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

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

Does not appear to pass WP:FILMMAKER, one film (also a newly created article). WP:TOOSOON at this point in time. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikia is not a suitable reference. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Well, it's not just sourced to Wikia. There's also the Queens Chronicle. But I don't really see much else. The BroadwayWorld source is just a routine notice that his film was released on DVD. Probably too soon for biography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm simple not seeing any coverage that might lead me to think it passes WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled Entrepreneurs

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

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

This article was originally declined as a draft here and here for being non-notable and the creators apparently decided to skip the AfC process (without dealing with the issue of non-notability). Primefac (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CORP. When I removed the copyvio I looked around for other sources, but with no success; of the four already in the article, one was (barely) usable. The Disabled Entrepreneurs Network and the Stelios Award for Disabled Entrepreneurs both appear to be notable enough for inclusion here if anyone felt so inclined; but this is neither of them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nominated. Nothing shows that it passes WP:CORP. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability in the context of WP:CORP. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

York House, Lambeth

York House, Lambeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A demolished non-descript office building. None of the 11 sources provided demonstrate why this was notable. Those that are listed are incidental mentions or directory listings. Fuebaey (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nondescript office building which has been demolished with little fanfare. Article and sources give no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sourcing attests to the fact that the building once existed, but does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a much belittling language above; always telling. In fact the eleven references clearly meet the three key tenents of WP:GNG:

1. "Significant coverage": addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research was needed to extract the content ... more than a trivial mention but need not be the main topic of the source material.
2. "Reliable": sources have editorial integrity.
3. "Sources" are secondary sources.

-Arb. (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, are you genuinely suggesting that these references: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] are not directory listings? Fuebaey (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear the sources are:

1. a database of new property developments and buildings in London; as a directory, this building's inclusion is a matter of course and not a matter of notability
2. a website dedicated to photographing every square kilometre of Great Britain and Ireland; this building's inclusion is a matter of course and not a matter of notability
3. a government planning report in response to a planning submission; this is routine planning administration activity and does not denote notability
4. some guy's blog about a pub crawl; hardly a reliable source
5. it's a listing for a tenant in the bibliography of a book; that is hardly significant
6. it's a listing of abbreviations of engineering bodies of which one happens to have offices in this building; again, not at all significant
7. it's an appendix listing some funding sources of which one organisation in the list happens to have an office in the building; again, not at all significant
8. it's yet another appendix listing which includes a building tenant; again, not at all significant
9. this is as explicit a directory as one can get; again, not at all significant
10. this is an archaeological report provides a passing mention; this is not significant coverage -- Whpq (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - above keep is unconvincing. The sources in the article are sufficient to ascertain that the building existed but that doesn't mean it is notable. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:GNG; in particular, there is not significant coverage of this building. The one source not mentioned in Whpq's list is the one supporting the car parking in the basement, which is not anything notable either. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Touma

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

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Subject's thesis in computer science has been cited a handful of times according to the ACM Digital Library. GScholar has some more works, none of which have received any measurable notice. I couldn't find any critical attention to his philosophical work, either; "Walid Touma review" digs up only sites selling his book. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The Science book's 2nd edition has been released in 2012, and several Computer Architecture books have referenced it. The philosophy book has been released 6 months ago, and it needs more time to get the relevant traction. The content flow has been changed significantly to make it less subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuntf (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CS book has been cited five times, which in CS terms is next to nothing. For the rest, please see WP:TOOSOON: if a topic hasn't garnered attention, we don't need an article about it. (This nomination is not about the tone, since that can be easily fixed without blowing the article up. It's merely about the encyclopedic importance of the topic, or lack therefore.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing GNG LavaBaron (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - far too soon (see above), too up and coming, and too new to academia. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Maybe this person will be notable in a few years, and the article can be re-created later. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced BLP, fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. As with Qwertyus, I was unable to find reliable sources that would establish notability. Shanata (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghar Aii Hamari Pyaare Bahu

Ghar Aii Hamari Pyaare Bahu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a soap opera. No evidence of WP:GNG notability, if it even exists. Possibly a hoax. See logs for previous speedy deletion. - MrX 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability more than asserted under WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Biennale

Jerusalem Biennale (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 attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly discussion to be having. A Biennial is a Biennial. Now Jerusalem has one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even if so far there is not much of useful information as only one event took place, it will likely to get beefed up as time passes. If it was cancelled now, I would argue for deletion but as it should/would have a 2nd event in 6 months, I suggest cancelling the nomination for now and reevaluating in early 2016. Ashtul (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep True, when this article was nominated it was about a "first annual" art fair and had no sources. I have added sources to this Biennial art fair officially recognized by Venice Biennale, of a type now popular worldwide [6]. first annual (2013) event was covered in major newspapers. Reliable sources added about preparations for 2015 Biennale.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. There were several errors, such as lack of citations and a wrote date, but they have been fixed through the ordinary editing process. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources attest to the notability of this art show. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus was that this article has so thoroughly comingled the biographies of two different people that it would be better to blow it up and start over. The article created by John Pack Lambert represents the starting over. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hall (biologist)

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

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

I nominate this for deletion. The problems with the article are as follows:

1. The original author clearly has an in-depth understanding of Dr Hall's contributions to science as a research scientist. This would take several hours of research for someone unconnected to the subject. This strongly implies that the article is an autobiography, which is frowned upon.
2. I find little coverage of Dr Hall himself. He claims to be working at Cambridge but I can't find his academic homepage on the Cantabrigian website. This is something that all academics invariably have to let colleagues contact them.
3. I suspect he doesn't meet the very stringent requirements of WP:PROF; this might be because it's WP:TOOSOON.

The situation is complicated by the fact that there is another Alan Hall, born 1952, who not only shares the same name but is also British and is also a cancer researcher. That Alan Hall is a professor at the Sloan-Kettering Institute and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1999 and clearly does meet WP:PROF [7]. The subject of the article is "Alan K. Hall", but there are also other researchers with the name "AK Hall". Le petit fromage (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused about this. Alan Hall leads to a footballer called Allan Hall. There is no other Alan Hall candidate on wikipedia. The year of birth on this page is obviously incorrect (unless he really did take up a post-doctoral fellowship at the age of 15), but what little other information there is is genuine. Papers arising from his time at Cambridge are dated 1995-ish, so maybe he's moved on. My feeling is that this page was put up not by Alan Hall himself but someone close to him – family member or student/fan. Since it is all true and valid, it shouldn't be deleted, but expanded to incorporate/be the Sloan-Kettering one (who is not on wp) but ought to be. I have written to him to see what he says (if anything). --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 11:48, wikitime= 03:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's a straightforward academic bio that explicitly meets the requirements of WP:PROF beyond any conceivable doubt because of the FRS. I gather the problem is simply that there are two people of this name, and they need to be sorted out. The listing of someone's research projects as derived from the titles of their papers is a routine exercise, and does not require personal knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure of the confusion. Alan Hall the footballer is "inherently notable" by virtue of the fact that he happened to be on a particular field, being paid, while a ball was kicked around by other people being paid. Alan Hall FRS is notable because he meets WP:PROF. Neither are the subject of this particular article. The former has an article elsewhere - the latter currently doesn't have one. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We need a source for the FRS asserted in the article. Also the Alan Hall mentioned here: [8] would be notable but does not appear to be the same Alan Hall in the article. Geogene (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh FFS please pay attention this article is largely an autobiography by Alan Hall (born 1963) - (I think he knows his own age). He is not FRS, but there is another guy with the same name who is. He is the subject of [9]. Alan Hall FRS was educated at Oxford (BA/MA), Harvard (PhD), and worked at Edinburgh, Zürich, UCL and the Sloan-Kettering Institute. This Alan Hall, the subject of this biography was educated at Aston (BSc) and Hull (PhD), then worked at Yale and Cambridge They are two people with the same name but with different identitities - seriously how hard is this to grasp?. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....Yes. That's why I removed the FRS and Gairdner Prize from the article. Is there anything else in there that needs to go? Geogene (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the notability criteria for academics is at WP:NACADEMIC. None of those criteria are met here. Geogene (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Alan Hall FRS is notable. The other one probably isn't. But right now we seem to have some kind of mashup article on the two of them, making it unclear whose AfD this is. Geogene appears to be working to push the article to be about the non-notable one only. This seems to be the wrong direction to me. Is there some reason we can't rewrite the article to be clearly and only about the notable one? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the biographical content is about the non-notable one, but was formerly salted with the other's achievements that would confer notability. Those I have removed. I don't oppose this suggestion, but it would require the greater amount of re-writing, to the point of WP:TNT. Geogene (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT with no prejudice against creating a new article on Alan Hall FRS. Even if we do eventually have such an article (and I think we probably should), there's no reason to leave this mess in the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, David Eppstein is exactly right. The notable Alan Hall deserves an article, but leaving this edit history behind will just confuse future editors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT as David Eppstein points out. Should future articles of any other person named Alan Hall be attempted, care should be prevented to not create a Frankenstein article assembled from parts of different Alan Halls. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of the article is about the biologist. Only the first half of the first paragraph is open to debate. If you binned this and started again, what would you call it? NB I have written to the school stated, but they are unable to help because they keep records only 7 years. Nor can the Royal Society help, because they don't keep bios on Fellows, apart from obit pieces. I always think it a weak argument to be on the side of future editors who may get confused (poor dears). -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 15:35, wikitime= 07:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment makes no sense given the information that you've been given above (granted, only about 3 times). Le petit fromage (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information? I see no information, not even once. I see "information", i.e. uncited assertions derived from subjective interpretations. No matter how strident and insulting you become Le petit fromage, I am unswayed. Hence my name.

The article's title is Alan Hall (biologist) and that is what it is about for the most part – all the career achievements relate to that man. Granted there may be some suspect elements in the bio data, but these can be removed. It seems to me that an unrelated Alan Hall chose to "have a laugh". That is no grounds for deletion of the article. I see many examples every day of vandalism, often incorporating the vandal's name or partner's. That is no reason to delete the article, all that is required is to remove the vandalised parts. This is made difficult here because the article changed names, peharps more than once. Still no reason to delete.

-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 14:39, wikitime= 06:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding with inane word salads will get you nowhere. Go back and read what was said. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Frankenarticle, create new stub for FRS. Samsara 02:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Repurpose into an article on Alan Hall (born 1952). This might essentially be delete this article, but I think we need to be sure to make one on the other Alan Hall immidiately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just created the article Alan Hall (born 1952). I used two of the sources linked to above. It could use at lot of fixing by someone who has a better grasp of what exactly Dr. Hall does than I do. I think this illustrates a weakness in Wikipedia. We do not have as good coverage of major living scientist as we could have, and our coverage is often of people who are not really that important, but have either tried to promote themselves or had close friends do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After reading through the whole discussion I have realized that this article should be deleated. No reason to burden the other one with a wrong edit history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G5 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Ghar Aii Hamari Pyaare Bahu

List of accolades received by Ghar Aii Hamari Pyaare Bahu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about accolades. Fails WP:GNG. Possible hoax. - MrX 21:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Recurrence (film)

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

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

Non-notable film. Article was apparently created by the director of the film. I PRODed, but the tag was removed by an IP without explanation. The article doesn't cite any reliable sources, and none of the people involved in the production of the film are notable to have articles of their own. Google web and news searches don't reveal any reliable sources, either. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. IMDb does list it,[10] but seeing as it's in pre-production and "will be shooting mid-year", at the very least, it's WP:TOOSOON (to be charitable) and probably WP:COI. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. So far it's just a bit too soon for an entry. I have no prejudice against it being re-created when it releases and gains coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:COI is a problem, but not a reason to delete, but this is clearly WP:TOOSOON. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howling wolf productions

Howling wolf productions (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)

needs to be wikified, no inline citations Fuddle (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preceded by Howling Wolf Productions

• Delete (maybe speedy A7 or G4). No sources outside press releases and passing mentions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You may need to look to see if Guest House (2013 film) ultimately meets notability guidelines for films as well, since they also created that article. There is an additional award won since then, which is the only thing that may prevent this from being speedied as a recreation of a deleted article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, this looks like it's an article they created slightly before the previous AfD so it may fail a speedy on that technicality alone since it slightly pre-dated the other article or at least pre-dates the AfD. Either way this looks to be a clear delete since nothing has really changed since the last AfD. It still fails notability guidelines. I'm going to check on the article for the film since the film festival awards don't appear to be all that major and I could swear that it also came up for AfD at some point in time. Either way, I'd like to caution all of the SPAs involved with the creation of this article because it looks like their main focus for editing has been to promote Howling Wolf and anything associated with them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've brought the film to AfD here. I'm just still a little concerned about all of the SPAs making a concentrated effort to put this company and its works on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also adding that this should be salted if deleted since Aaron Wolf and Howling Wolf Productions were re-created so many times that they eventually needed to be salted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Should have been A7'd really. No assertion of notability. Additionally, it should be salted. Previous, similarly titled article was created so many times, it was salted. No confidence that the creator won't continue this behaviour. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus - original close vacated, and AfD re-closed as "no consensus" per DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Diesel

Note: nominator/creator this AfD (User:Macreep) is sock-puppet of blocked user:Redban, confirmed by checkuser here. Generally, the page should be closed because it was created illegally. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think this article subject doesn't pass the pornstar biography guideline without any award wins. Whether he passes GNG or not is a little less obvious. The article uses mostly press releases and such from avn and xbiz. Any thoughts? Macreep (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wikipedia a little slow these days? lol Macreep (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet[reply]

• Keep - I believe he passes the GNG. Multiple articles from both AVN and XBIZ plus the feature in Cosmo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Morbidthoughts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside pornography topics.

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO, and fluffing by the promotional trade press does not establish notability per GNG. Pax 07:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO. Insufficient independent reliable sourcing to satisfy the GNG (references are either industry PR or likely kayfabe). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources like AVN, XBIZ, and Cosmopolitan to satisfy the WP:GNG. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Rebecca1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside pornography topics.

The trade press are not independent RS. Discounting industry promotion, the single Cosmopolitan piece is not "enough" independent RS to satisfy GNG. Pax 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, actual AVN and XBIZ articles written by the magazines journalists are reliable sources. They do publish press releases as well, but they make sure to label them as "Company News" or "Company Press". This article does not cite any press releases. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Claiming AVN and XBIZ magazines are RS does not actually make them RS. See this discussion and keep in mind for the following crucial context: The plumber magazine referred to in the discussion is one that is for plumbers - i.e., it's not promotional media delivered to people with leaking sinks. (Such a publication might be RS; note that it is not automatically so - it must be independent.) In contrast to that example, the adult industry's "trade" magazines are explicitly marketing vehicles tailored to give the potential customer a slight taste of the action. They are not independent, although they may (and I would argue do) pretend to be. Your position essentially amounts to demanding that de facto advertizing be considered RS. Pax 05:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the small number of references that aren't press releases or repackaged PR, there are so many contradictions, even in supposedly direct statements by the article subject, that none of them can be established as reliable, and we can't have BLPs without reliable sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, can you actually show us these discrepancies you claim to have found in the article's sources? Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction In the Cosmopolitian article, Shane says he entered the industry after meeting a couple at a party and they then introduced him to some insiders running some internet pornography sites. But in Papi Chulo blog, he says he and Lisa Sparxx's husband shot him in a small internet scene and then later he answered an ad for Playboy or Hustler that burst him into the scene. In the XBiz article, they quote Shane Diesel saying he broke in the industry by answering some ad for "Big Cock Contest" and then later he met "a girl online named Lisa Sparks" who shot him in a photo shoot (Remember, the Cosmo article say he met her at a party, here it says online, and the Papi Chulo article says it was a gonzo scene, not a photo shoot). Basically in one article, he shot a scene with Lisa Sparks and her husband after meeting her at a party. In another article he meets her online AFTER winning some contest and shoots a photo op (not a scene) for her. In another article he meets her BEFORE he answer some Playboy or Hustler ad. Just click on the first 3 links in the article page to see these Macreep (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)confirmed sockpuppet[reply]

I'm going to put some quotes --- In Papi Chulo blog he say "Initially I answered an ad for Lisa Sparxxx's website.She liked well hung Black guys. Lisa and hubby came over and we did a small internet scene. Now as far as my big break, I answered an ad in Hustler or Playboy for the Big Cock Society. They fly in guys that are winners for the month to do a photo shoot. It was a solo masturbation shoot." In Cosmo, Shane says "When I was 39, I went to a party and there was this couple there. We started talking, and they told me they were looking for someone to do some web work. Gonzo" adult stuff." In XBiz, he says, "there was an ad for a 'Big Cock Contest' in Miami. I emailed them some pictures, and I won the February 2003 contest. They flew me out and paid me a lot of money. From there, it kind of snowballed. A lot of people were asking me about doing porn, and I met a girl online named Lisa Sparks, who wanted to do a photo shoot with me." Macreep (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet restored, since this is an accurate summary and I'll adopt it rather than retyping it (TBBW)[reply]

The inconsistencies demonstrate the subject's memory is unreliable and does not measure the reliability of the sources. If they quote his "misremembering", their reliability is based on the accuracy of the quote, not the veracity of the statement. Kayfabe is not a reason to discredit the notability of the subjects or the sources that cover them either considering we have articles on wrestlers focusing on their fictional personas and storylines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not dealing with a fictional character/persona here, as is involved in wrestling. We're dealing with a falsified biography presented as fact. That's simply not suitable for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such "inconsistencies", if less charitably concluded to be "cleaning up one's background" or even "lying like a common politician", drag one into the direction of contemplating WP:ADMASQ. Pax 05:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per argument above. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What unaddressed argument above do you consider to be valid? Pax 05:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. You have ban on nominating articles for deletion and topic ban (pages "about or related to pornography"). This page is /articles for deletion and also related to pornography - so, you break the rules. Also, very interesting is new account: User:Macreep (nominator), probably sock-puppet (minimum contribution, new account, fluent skill of inserting articles to remove...). Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editing a pornography-related article; this is a discussion. (Similarly, I am not restricted from participating on the talk pages of pornography-related articles...not that I have bothered, mind you.) So, nice try, but no dice. Pax 06:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrong. This page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and you vote for delection (+ you are the most! active in the discussion for delete this article). And also, page for delection is Shane Diesel, pornographic actor - so, this is 100% related to pornography. You break the rules. It is still a matter of sock-puppets, require CheckUser intervention. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted...." - BzzT! Thanks for playing. (There is no "topic ban", btw; you need to read that a little more carefully.) Pax 15:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a topic ban - pages related! to pornography, Shane Diesel is pornography actor, so - 100% related to pornography. You break judgment. You get double topic ban for mass create pages AfD for remove pornography articles. Currently, you voted, and lead very active discuss for removal of the pornography article, stems from the fact that you are incapable of reform - the lack of any desire to improve behavior. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a "topic ban"; the judgment, which you yourself linked to, explicitly stated "temporary ban on editing articles about or related to pornography." The box in the upper-right: that's the judgment. The word "page" does not appear; nor does the word "topic", or "broadly construed" or any of that other jazz often seen in harsher administrative judgments. Stop mangling it in a base attempt to shut up the opposition and detract attention from the merits of this article under discussion. Pax 08:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Folks stop edit war about the topic ban, the temporary ban or whatever. The closer will take care of the issue, otherwise if you feel a clarification is so urgent then raise the issue in the proper places, not here. Cavarrone 08:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Раціональне анархіст / Pax, we should ask the administrator in this matter. It is obvious that you have topic ban - "about or related to pornography", this page is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. Do not have a right to be here to edit, discuss, vote. You broke the ban. Do not make excuses for the word of "temporary", yes - your topic ban is temporary (30 days from 19 January) but 11 February [11] is not end of 30 days, you have still one week ban. Also, you are incapable of reform - the lack of any desire to improve behavior - you was punished for edits to the removal of pornographic pages and... continue doing the same thing. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately deceptive, purposefully disruptive. Subtropical-man, you know perfectly well that Pax's topic ban extended only to AFD nominations, not participating in AFD discussions, and to (quite specifically) "articles" about pornography, not discussions or other pages outside articlespace. You participated in the pertinent ANI discussion; you had the opportunity to propose a broader ban; and you didn't. It's outright abusive for you to pretend that the ban extends beyond its quite clear language, just as the phony SPI accusations you brought against Pax were abusive. Your actions bring your honesty and competence into question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please stop personal attack [12][13] and respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You do not understand something in my action? You can ask.

• why I created a notification of SPI? Because user Раціональне анархіст aka Pax and Redban and its sockpuppets has very similar behavior, on several levels. Not just me this noticed. SPI came out well, because the sockpuppet of Redban caught.
• why drew attention to the topic ban? because (still) I think that topic ban has been broken, topic ban is "about or related to pornography", this page AfD is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. For me is simple: "about or related to pornography" and AfD about pornographic actor, so.

let's finish this topic. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz of bad faith and personal attacks when those exact things constitute the sum total entirety of your commentary during this AfD hijacking? Look in the mirror. Pax 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Decent coverage in mainstream media for a male porn star. The fact that the guy holds down a mainstream job in the airline industry is not only hilariously interesting, but makes him stand out amongst his peers. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the multiple independent mainstream media pieces which would comprise the necessary "decent coverage" for notability? How is this snowflake especially that much more special than the other run-of-the-mill porn actors with no award wins and no RS who don't make the cut? Pax 05:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan magazine is fairly significant endorsement plus the interview on the AskMen.com website in the "Money" advice section is sufficient for me. I'm taking into consideration how difficult it is for an adult film actor to get any mainstream press that is not essentially tabloid in nature. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there are plenty of porn stars who do manage to get it. Shane Diesel is just another guy doing interracial, which hasn't been that exotic for forty years. Pax 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above from wolfowitz and pax, this article is based on super weak RS for a BLP article. Regardless of the distracting muss and fuss about who is banned from what and for however long, Id say FOCUSING ON THE ARTICLE, it's a strong DELETE. Shark310 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Scalhotrod, Rebecca1990, Morbidthoughts, and Subtropical-man. It feels like I wondered into a battleground discussion. Following the advise above, "FOCUSING ON THE ARTICLE...", it's a Keep, if not overwhelmingly, but sufficiently. The multiple sources show notability per WP:PORNBIO and WP:N (or GNG, if you prefer). The multiple independent trade press sources are reliable in this context since they are not press releases, rather they are signed articles, and are clearly not "...fluffing by the promotional trade press". And the Cosmo article cinched it. - Becksguy (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Neyor

Christopher Neyor (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: Not notable positions or academic status, sources not reliable; Fails WP:BIO, WP:SOAP, WP:ACADEMIC Pennyfoolish (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Note sure what inspired a SPA to register and nominate this for deletion, but the subject is clearly notable. A quick new search shows many articles about Neyor and his activities. Not sure if the nominator feels the article is promotional or advocating for a cause (SOAP could be either), but it looks 100% neutral to me, and in any case tone is not normally a reason for deletion. Lastly, it is hardly surprising that an energy analyst/company CEO would fail NACADEMIC - his claim to notability is related to business, not academics. Pinging @Zach Vega: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - (A) Consensus on non-academic status, fails WP:Academic (B) For business, neither positions nor coverage establishes notability. 'Morweh Energy Group, an energy consultancy firm' is not a notable firm and ' former President/CEO of the National Oil Company of Liberia' fails notability as well. Nor does it establish a claim as an 'international energy analyst.' Furthermore, articles mentioned are of questionable reliability and largely related to a prior 'Independent Montserrado County Senatorial candidacy,' a non-notable political position in Liberia and not a business related function (i.e., WP:SOP). This amalgamation does not establish business notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennyfoolish (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't !vote twice so have struck..... –Davey2010^Talk 08:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO easily. A senatorial candidate and the former president of the National Oil Company in Liberia is surely notable enough for inclusion, I think. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformation (band)

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

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

This band and their self-released albums are not notable. The articles do not provide substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Per previous Afd, "The result was delete. I'm also salting, as the article has been recreated and deleted multiple times." I found no explanation for why it was permitted to be recreated (oversight?)--there is no reason to suggest it belongs in an encyclopedia. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related album entries, which also lack substantial coverage to demonstrate notability:

The Reformation (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fatal Expectation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep all. Artist pages have at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional four new sources are sufficient to establish notability per WP:BAND. Wikitam331 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify the additional sources since the previous AfD? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication. Wikitam331 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm not seeing anything that fits these descriptions--could you provide links? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are on The_Reformation_(band)#References. #1 is an in-depth song-by-song album review in an established music journal. #2 is a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, and is the only source that was present before the article was deleted the first time. #4 is is another non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper. #5 is an in-depth interview of the band in an established music journal. #6 is a song review in a podcast that was done by an established music publication. Point being, that there are at least five acceptable sources provided, and WP:BAND only requires a minimum of three acceptable sources. Wikitam331 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#1 and #5 are to the same non-reliable source, nor can independence be determined. Neither the site nor the reviewer have WP articles--is it some sort of blog collective? Based on web searches, no one knows. #2 was previously dismissed in the AfD that got this article salted. #4 is four sentences in a local free weekly--hope the author at least got a cup of coffee out the deal. #6 is a YouTube video by some guy in his basement that's managed 54 views. What else you got? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that #1 and #5 are not independent, and a source does not need to have a WP article in order to be considered credible. The source has published interviews with notable individuals such as Jon Anderson, John Payne (singer), Martin Barre, and many others. There is no doubt that it is a reliable source. #2 was not "dismissed", it was deemed insufficient to establish notability by itself. Length is not a requirement for notability, which is why #4 is an acceptable source. #6 is not "some guy in his basement", it's a podcast by an editor from Middle Tennessee Music, a music publication that has provided plenty of evidence of its credibility.] Wikitam331 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are as much a "PR and marketing firm" as they are a "music publication". They aim to promote singer/songwriters and bands (their "clients") using their online media (including podcasts). We'll never know if the band paid them to promote them or not but don't, for a minute, confuse them with Rolling Stone. They are perfectly entitled to do what they do but suggesting they are a reliable source is a stretch. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence for those claims? Wikitam331 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided - everything after the first point in "To summarize". They make no secret of it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make them an unreliable source in any way. Wikitam331 (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest they're not a source, such that the question thereafter (of reliably or not) is moot. They don't report on musical acts (like the New York Times), they promote musical acts in an effort to get people to report on them. They brag about coverage they've managed to get for particular bands. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly do report on musical acts. Nothing else that you said proves that it's an unacceptable source. Wikitam331 (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They report on their own acts, yes. Like any other record label, except that they work for independents and unsigned groups, "with the goal of empowering them to have more control over their career". That's fine but let's not pretend they are something they are not. It's not my job to prove that they aren't a reliable source (anyway), it's your job to prove they are. In light of their candid admission of their purpose, what evidence do you have that they are lying and are, in fact, an industry magazine? "We are here to engage, support, promote, and empower the independent music community." They aren't a publication, they are a PR agency. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your proof that "The Reformation" is one of "their own" acts? The proof that MTM is a credible source has already been provided to you, and when it was, you admitted that they are a music publication. In fact, they publish interviews and album reviews on their website. Sounds like a music publication to me. Additionally being involved in promotion does not mean they are an uncredible source. Nobody ever said they are an "industry magazine", please don't dishonestly put words in my mouth like that. Wikitam331 (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've "admitted" no such thing and I don't even know where you think the "gotcha" was. Your job here is to convince people that the sources are reliable and the band is notable. The "source" in question isn't close to reliable. You're so busy arguing for the sake of arguing that you're getting nowhere on the WP:CONSENSUS you need. I'm done - you can argue this out with others (as you have at DRV and AFD before). St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "They are as much a 'PR and marketing firm' as they are a 'music publication',", and I agree. There was no "gotcha". This is pointless anyway, becuase you came in here with your mind made up already. You were not going to reverse your decision no matter how much proof was provided to you. Wikitam331 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute rubbish. I regularly change my mind at AFD and went into the very first DRV offering you an opportunity to change my mind. You just keep dragging out the same tired arguments. See WP:SPA, WP:STICK and WP:IDHT. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Nothing has changed substantially since the last time; the same single-purpose account vainly chipping away at an article for his favorite local band, the same local newspaper blurb, the same "review" from a non-notable music blog. Does not meet WP:BAND, nor does t meet WP:GNG. Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time. As the band is non-notable and the albums are non-charting independent releases, delete those as well. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. Article was unsalted because deleting admin agreed that the additional three new sources are sufficient to establish notability per WP:BAND. In addition to one non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, there is now a non-trivial, song-by-song album review in an established music journal; a non-trivial album review in an established local newspaper, an in-depth interview in an established musical journal; and a non-trivial song review in a podcast by a credible music publication. There are at least five non-trivial, published works that provide substantial coverage that appears in sources that are reliable, not-self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The page only needs to satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in WP:BAND, which it clearly does. You are also making claims contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, like "Delete, salt, and leave it so for eternity this time." Wikitam331 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overstating the case w/r/t admin's decision--unsalting admin said "This is not an endorsement of the article in your sandbox". Am still curious about these "three new sources"--care to elucidate? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above, in the fourth bullet point under my original comment. Wikitam331 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why the nominator asked me on my talk page to participate in this. [14] I have never once edited these pages, nor participated in the past AFDs. I checked to make certain. I see a total of 18 people were contacted. Why? Dream Focus 22:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified because you participated in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (album) (2nd nomination). I notified editors who made content changes to the band or album articles or who participated in previous AfD's about them--did not realize there had been so many previous AfD's when I started. I excluding template-fixers, non-involved admins, and banned/blocked users. Sorry if I over-notified --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that. Different color signature back then so I didn't notice. Way back in 2008 I said delete because the album wasn't even out yet. Alright, my mistake. Dream Focus 23:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and salt again. This was repeatedly recreated and the last AFD (despite being the subject of a concerted sock-puppetry campaign) still resulted in delete. I know the request seemed good-faith but I really can't see why this was unsalted. A new local review and something from what is essentially some guy's self-published e-zine wouldn't be enough to overturn deletion and salting at DRV (which is where the recreation request should have been made). "I like this album quite a bit. These guys are pretty amazing..." Well then. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the individuals you invited to participate, did you invite anybody who voted "keep" in past AfD's? If not, this should be considered Votestacking per WP:Votestacking. Wikitam331 (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I notified everybody who voted in the AfDs, unless they were blocked or banned, including the "keep" voters. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one real editor (IP editors do not count) ever voted to keep; GlassCobra. That editor was notified, but has not been active for several months. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The sourcing in the article's is extremely weak. Unless someone presents new coverage, I don't believe there is enough there to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage to date, in my view, falls short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Insufficient in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources - with emphasis on both independent and reliable. There seems to be a misconception on Wikipedia that a plethora of links in the 'References' section automatically adds up to notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. While I wasn't sure at an initial glance, the discussion between Hobbes Goodyear, Stalwart111, and Wikitam331 above does an excellent job of explaining why the sourcing at present does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. While I'm neutral on whether the titles merit salting again, the delete question isn't even close. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - No assertion of notability in the context of WP:BAND or WP:GNG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Expried BLPPROD. Randykitty (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Allahverdov (Allahverdi-Amatuni)

Sergei Allahverdov (Allahverdi-Amatuni) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced BLP for a U.S.-based historian. Reliable source coverage not found in search. Tagged for BLPPROD on 8 February but the author keeps changing the timestamp so the PROD never expires. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Ram Bagha

Tej Ram Bagha (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)

Per WP:NPOL and longstanding consensus at AFD, Wikipedia does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on the mayors of individual boroughs within London, nor indeed on the mayors of any place where the mayoralty is a ceremonial post that rotates among councillors rather than being directly elected by the voting public. Accordingly, this mayor's chances of qualifying for a Wikipedia article rely entirely on being able to satisfy WP:GNG — but of the three sources here, #1 is a WordPress blog (an unreliable source); #2 is a single passing acknowledgement of his existence in an article about a local youth public speaking competition (not substantive coverage of him); and #3 is the borough's own website (a primary source). All of which means that GNG has not been fulfilled here. Delete unless a much bigger and better volume of reliable sourcing can be located than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. British non-executive mayors are not notable. They are just taking their turn at being chairman of the council and chief representative of the borough for a year. Any long-serving councillor will get their turn eventually. It is not a notable post outside the town itself. This has indeed been established in a number of AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC.--Antigng (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - locally famous, but not notable as we define it for a politician. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Goodier, Sr.

Charles W. Goodier, Sr. (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)

Mayor for three years of a small town in NY. Small scandal, but I propose merging that part into the town's wiki page and deleting this one. Aaekia (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without merger. The place has a population of 2.6K, and the scandal is him building a house outside the village limits (yawn). His obituary in The Buffalo News doesn't show anything that would satisfy WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page should be deleted. Mr. Goodier was a great community asset for all of WNY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2015 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the notability criteria of WP:Politician as a mayor of a small town, nor do the sources indicate he meets WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bezalel Inc.

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

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

The article is about a company with only 11 employees, and it relies almost entirely on unreliable sources. Hardly would this pass WP:ORG. Antigng (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A lot of trivial mentions or advertising-type blurbs in non-reliable sources like smaller trade magazines. One significant article in TechCrunch, which I think is usually regarded as a Reliable Source. However, WP:CORP requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Considering how young the company is, it may just be TOOSOON for it to have gained the required coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer

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

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

Promotional re-creation (again) by an SPA (again) almost identical to the last AFD'd version. Sawyer still doesn't verifiably meet WP:CREATIVE and the article's sourcing remains weak. The subject's most significant credit is a self-published book and the secondary coverage largely amounts to the book's foreword and two paragraphs on a critic's personal website, both of which an editor in a previous DRV suggested were possibly pay-for-praise gigs. The only new addition to the article is a quote (promotional, of course) from an interview done with the World Socialist Website. While it's something, it alone doesn't elevate the subject to notability from 3x-AFD'd non-notability.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt - IMHO it does seem somewhat promotional but that aside I can't find any shred of notability, Also It's been recreated 4 times and with each result being delete I think Salting is the best option. –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no reason to change the results of the last 3 discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To fill you in: Sawyer is an accomplished artist: Read not only his his last interview on the WSW by Richard Philips, but also read what the ex museum director Julian Spalding writes about him on his own website and read what A. D. Coleman (first photo critic of the New York Times) writes about his work in his book "City" Mosaic and on his own website. Also Sawyer's work is present in several important museum collections around the world which gives already the status of importance that he needs to have an article in Wikipedia. I suggest that you help to improve this article instead of suggest deletion. It is very important that Errol Sawyer, considered as having equal value as the African-American photographer Roy Decarava, has an article in WIki UK as he is a role model for the African-American community. I will ask the advise of more editors as I suspect prejudice from your side. 1027E (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — 1027E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please refrain from implying an editor (myself in this case) has racial motivations—it's uncivil and it didn't get anyone to take your side when you re-created this article the last time. Also, do not WP:CANVAS for support. It's highly inappropriate in an AfD.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the lengthy quotation from this bloke's website, more specifically, from an article that ends by saying that Wikipedia is quite usable after all. ¶ So Sawyer is considered as having equal value as the African-American photographer Roy Decarava. That's praise indeed! Please add it to the article, with a source. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article seems to have been constructed as "User:Fred Bakker" (facing imminent deletion). Perhaps Fred Bakker would care to comment. -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might have initially been constructed by "Fred Bakker," but as your link shows, all the subsequent editing is 1027E, who has already graced us with their opinion.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since AfC just approved this article a month ago, I don't see the urgency to delete it. It passed AfC's standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was created a month ago, only relatively minor edits have been made, so I'm not really sure what there is to wait for, especially since the few years since the last AfD hasn't produced much either.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the page User:Fred Bakker (deletion likely to be imminent) is curiously similar to that of User:Wgreter (sorry, deleted and therefore for admins only). There was User:Decker4/Errol_Sawyer as well. Errol Sawyer has popped up all over the place. I wonder how many other examples there may have been in WP. Hello, what's this? User:Example user him/her/it/themself! -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not really the place to discuss such things, however there is WP:SPI which is designed exactly for that purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe the article's history has tainted the discussion. This is highly understandable and a part of me would agree with "delete due to repeated bad behavior". However, I do believe the subject is actually notable, at least now (likely not at the time of previous AfDs, the most recent of which was June 2013). At minimum, there certainly is a difference between now and previous AfDs, despite assertions to the contrary. The World Socialist Web Site [article published in December is both extensive and biographical. While I wouldn't be trusted the WSWS for opinions on economics, it is undoubtable reliable in the general sense as it has an extensive editorial staff and is backed by a major organization. So, that source does confer notability. The PF Magazine coverage is not currently accessible (will try to track in down elsewhere later), so I can't say for certain it is extensive, but it should be reliable as it appears to a print magazine in business since 1986. The coverage by notable art critic Julian Spalding is also meaningful. There are also numerous sources that credit him with discovering Christie Brinkley. All-in-all I feel notability is established. If the article is kept, I promise to personally clean it up promotionalism and unverifiable material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @MatthewVanitas: who accepted the article at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I have had a good look around for sources but not really found enough that will really make the article stick. He's obviously had a long and successful track record in photography, but most of it seems to be in the background, peripherally being involved in local events. There's that World Socialist Web Site article, yeah, and this Hull Daily Mail Source credits him with being involved in launching Christie Brinkley's career, and there's a smattering of "Photograph by Errol Sawyer" in footnotes of some book sources, but that's it. The world at large seems to have passed over him, which is just the way it goes sometimes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I conducted several searches. Several newspaper articles by independent third parties either mention or discuss the life of photographer Errol Sawyer. For those voting delete, I wonder if you would change your minds based on the evidence? Incidentally, none of these sources are currently in the article. One article, published in Dutch by the Amsterdam-based daily newspaper Het Parool entitled "'Amsterdammers en New Yorkers lijken op elkaar' [Amsterdammers and New Yorkers are alike]" (JOS BLOEMKOLK, 23 February 2011, pg. 10) discusses the life and career of Errol Sawyer. A lot of what is currently in the article can be sourced to this Dutch-language newspaper article of Sawyer's life. Six other English-language newspaper articles published by the Daily Mail (London), Lowell Sun (Massachussetts), Express Online, The Express, The Independent (London), and Sunday Independent (Ireland) note that supermodel Christie Brinkley was discovered by Errol Sawyer in a post office in Paris in 1973, thus launching her modeling career. Further, a few German-language newspaper articles published by Frankfurter Rundschau repeatedly discuss a provocative exhibit by Errol Sawyer held in Frankfurt entitled "Poverty" in June 2003. It was an exhibit of homeless and poor people taken from the cities of New York, Amsterdam, and Paris where Sawyer worked. One German-language article in particular entitled "Vom fetten Teil der Kugel; "Armut" in Fotos, Text und Video: Vera Bourgeois und Errol Sawyer im Forum des Dominikanerklosters [From the fat part of the ball; "Poverty" in photos, text and video: Vera Bourgeois and Errol Sawyer in the forum of the Dominican monastery]" by photography critic / journalist Florian Malzacher (1 July 2003, pg. 12) discusses what Sawyer's work means for the photography profession. The question is: Does notability for the English-language Wikipedia rely on English-language reliable sources only or do foreign language reliable sources count, too? If the former, I can see how this might be a problem. If the latter, it's unclear why we should vote to delete the article. Oddexit (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does notability for the English-language Wikipedia rely on English-language reliable sources only Certainly not. [O]r do foreign language reliable sources count, too? Of course they do. -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regardless of other considerations, he has works in mayor museums. The BN ones & the Houston MFA ones at the least are documented. I consider that sufficient for any artist. This was ignored at the last AfD, but its the basic criterion. (And as for other refs, of course German language sources are as good as English) I point out , btw, that accepted at AfDC does not mean endorsing the article, it is just an opinion that the article will probably be kept at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why is this even an argument? The fact that it was AfD'd 3X before is not a good policy-based argument and thus should be ignored. However, the fact that he has his work in multiple museums is clearly enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. And as always we don't delete an article because sources haven't been added yet, only if they do not exist. Which as you can see from multiple comments above mine, that there are plenty of sources, and reliable sources proving that his works are in multiple museums. If we are basing this AfD purely on policy, then the only option is to keep it. Regardless of history, or editors who clearly do not get along. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article shouldn't exist now: we should instead be discussing the need for it at WP:DELREV. But if we were discussing it there, I'd argue for undeleting and improving. He's a photographer of some note, and sources exist to back up this claim. -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Lucy Show. Lucy.... OK good esplenation.... (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucille Ball Show

The Lucille Ball Show (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)

Lucy, you've got some 'splainin' to do. The only entry in this alleged dab page that even remotely qualifies is The Lucy Show - the early scripts used this title. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmmm. The thing is, Lucille Ball had so many different TV shows over the course of her career, and their names were mostly generic/forgettable enough that I can easily imagine a reader who doesn't already have preexisting knowledge of what the shows were actually called thinking that virtually any of them was called The Lucille Ball Show. (Even I Love Lucy, although more iconic and more likely to be remembered as a title in its own right by the majority of our readership, might still be thought of as The Lucille Ball Show by a few young or "non-native speakers of English" readers.) So to me, it's a completely plausible search term that should lead the reader somewhere useful rather than landing blank. That said, I agree that this doesn't actually need to stand alone as an independent title — Lucille Ball's biographical article already links to all of the shows anyway. So my suggestion would be to redirect to Lucille Ball; redirects are cheap and that wouldn't cause any harm. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Lucy Show, of which it was a variant name. Merge other content to Lucille Ball if necessary, though I believe it is already there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InfoBeans

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

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

Seems to be a promotional page for a private company whose Notability can't be established. The article doesn't cite any third-party sources. Sckolar (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A Highbeam search returns 18 results. Some are definitely no more than routine announcements but a couple quote representatives of the firm, one unsigned piece describing the firm as "one of the most renowned software companies at Indore" ([15], subscription reqd). These at least lift the article above CSD A7 territory, though I am not yet seeing anything that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -Subject makes a genuine claim of WP:CORPDEPTH but unfortunately doesn't appear to be meeting the standard at this time. WP:INDAFD -sources, HighBeam. If there are more sources that I missed, please {{ping}} me, I'll be happy to change my !vote. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per my previous comment above, a company going about its business, but evidence lacking that it is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Know

I Want to Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A song that did not chart. There was a reference that said it charted, but it was bogus. Prod was removed from the article by the creator and still no reference added. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the MO of the author of the article. I'd be concerned with the reliability of any article created by this editor. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim White (musician)

Tim White (musician) (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)

Musician failing WP:MUSICIAN. Weak sourcing. WP:NOT advertising. (WP:COI created by undisclosed paid editor, and WP:SPA IPs) Widefox; talk 11:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nom is well-made. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability under WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5 block evading author. Peridon (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Sheikh Honey

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No evidence of notability via a Google search. APK whisper in my ear 10:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty and Corruption in Mexico

Poverty and Corruption in Mexico (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)

Reads like an Essay. Article on both Poverty and corruption in Mexico are already present. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CFORK, to wit: Poverty in Mexico, Corruption in Mexico. —Swpb^talk 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An unnecessary content fork. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Copts. Nakon 01:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copts (ethnic group)

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

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

This article is based on the false premise that the Copts are an ethnic minority. In fact Copts is the general term for Egyptian Christians. There is no racial or ethnic distinction between Egyptian Christians and Egyptian Muslims. The Copts are the descendants of those Egyptians who remained Christian when the majority of the population converted to Islam after the Arab conquest. The article makes no attempt to justify the assertion that the Copts are an ethnic minority. It is also badly written and organised, but that is a secondary consideration to the fact that the existence of the article cannot be justified. There is already a perfectly good article on the Copts. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a fringe view. Borock (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Copts – The genetic information here is valuable and supports the notion of Copts as a distinct ethnic group. However, this could be merged into Copts if necessary. WikkanWitch (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does no such thing. It argues that Egyptians are a distinct ethnic group, which may well be so. But the terms Copt and Egyptian are not synonymous. The Copts are s subset of the Egyptians, defined by religion. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument in the article, that "Copt" refers to native Egyptians as an ethnic group, isn't exactly well-referenced, but it's not exactly unreferenced either, but it's hard to make head or tail of it. Could someone who is in favour of keeping the article please present some WP:RS which explicitly supports the argument? Please put references in this AfD so we can easily find them. De Guerre (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article's central assertion, that the term Copts includes all the "native Egyptians," is not referenced at all. In fact one of the references given directly contradicts that assertion: "The people of Egypt before the Arab conquest in the 7th century identified themselves and their language in Greek as Aigyptios (Arabic qibt, Westernized as Copt); when Egyptian Muslims later ceased to call themselves Aigyptioi, the term became the distinctive name of the Christian minority." The great majority of Egyptians are Arabic-speaking Muslims, and they have never identified themselves as Copts. There is nothing in the article which supports the assertion that the Copts are an ethnic group. The entire last section on genetic studies, impressive-looking as it is, is completely irrelevant to that question. It belongs in an article called Demographics of Egypt. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is an paper from the Chatham House journal International Affairs circa 1946, which I managed to dig out. It does talk about Egyptians who avoided Arab influence, but it doesn't really describe them in terms of a distinct ethnic group and doesn't use the word "Copt" or any variant thereof. That's why I used the carefully-worded phrase "not exactly unreferenced".

Knowing nothing about this issue, I strongly suspect that you're correct, but I'd like to give supporters a (small) chance to produce some RS which supports the claim, or establishes notability as a (WP:FRINGE?) theory. If the clock runs out and no evidence is presented, then delete. De Guerre (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to Copts. The present article has two aspects. One is much better covered by that article. The rest of it is a rescription of genetic research into Egyptian ethnic background. None of it asserts that the Christian Copts are ethnically distinct from their Muslim neighbours. That part of the article is thus not specifically about the subject of the article title; if a genetic distinction was provable, surely we would have heard of it. If we do not have this somewhere else, it needs to be merged elsewhare or to become a freestanding article (with a differnet title) on the Genetics of Egypt. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decision? So, when and by what process do we come to a decision about this? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The Copts are clearly an ethnic group as we use the term, "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience." I'm not sure there's much point in having this page separate from the main page, Copts, but that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's an absurd definition. On that definition Catholics and Protestants are ethnic groups, and so are gays and lesbians, and so are rich people and poor people. Ethnic comes from ethnos, a nation, and is clearly meant to refer to differences in national origin or race. In any case, that is not the sense in which the author of the article is using the term "ethnic group." He wants to suggest that the Copts (by which he means all "native Egyptians") are racially different to other people (specifically the Arabs), as shown by the genetic evidence he produces. He is not arguing merely that they are socially or culturally different. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This article is based on the false idea that the Copts are an ethnic minority. There is no ethnic distinction between Egyptian Christians and Egyptian Muslims. We are one entity.

In January 2015, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi visited the Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo during the Christmas mass, the first time ever an Egyptian head of state participated in a Christmas ceremony. Al-Sisi delivered a speech in which he emphasized that “It’s very important to tell the world during the ongoing circumstances that we are united Egyptians, without any classifications” (http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/01/07/al-sisi-gives-speech-christmas-mass-abasseya-cathedral). He said that both of Egypt's Muslims and Christians are celebrating this occasion, asserting that they are "one entity" in the world's eyes (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/119667/Egypt/Politics-/UPDATED-Sisi-first-Egyptian-President-to-attend-Co.aspx).Hatem El-Nashar (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.80.4 (talk) [reply]

Decision? This discussion has been open for two weeks. No-one has made any serious defence of the article, and its author has not put in an appearance. Once again I ask, when and by what process do we come to a decision about this? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No need of a separate article from the current article about Copts. MaronitePride (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Lang Son

Second Battle of Lang Son (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)

unnecessary fork of Sino-Vietnamese War that contains no refs and no useful information. Without providing any wider detail this page doesn't need to exist Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete there is mention in multiple reliable sources of combat during the Sino-Vietnamese War of fighting in or around Lang Son, but none that appear to address the combat as a specific event with in the war, or give the event significant coverage, sufficient to pass WP:GNG.

Edward C. O'Dowd (16 April 2007). Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-134-12268-4.

William H. Mott IV; Jae Chang Kim (3 April 2006). The Philosophy of Chinese Military Culture: Shih Vs. Li. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-4039-8313-8.

Bruce Elleman (20 April 1996). "Sino-Soviet Relations and the February 1979 Sino-Vietnamese Conflict". The Vietnam Center. Texas Tech University.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No argument that there was fighting there, but this page contains absolutely no detail whatsoever. Given the scarcity of reliable information about the Sino-Vietnamese War generally, isn't better to just have one reasonably detailed page rather than vague forks like this? Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Lang Son

First Battle of Lang Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

unnecessary fork of Sino-Vietnamese War that contains minimal refs and no useful information that isn't already contained on the main page. Without providing any wider detail this page doesn't need to exist Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been provided. Forking/splitting issues are resolved by merger not deletion, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. And, in any case, the page seems a reasonable account of the battle. See The Lang Son Front for an example of a detailed source. Andrew D. (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the reason to delete is as stated above - this page contains absolutely nothing that isn't already covered on Sino-Vietnamese War which you will see if you look at both pages.Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOAX, no non-primary or secondary reliable sources can be found that verify that the subject of this AfD occurred. It is the burden of the content creator to provide reliable sources to prove that the event in fact existed. There is one book that mentions the subject, however it was written in 1904, long before the subject of this AfD is alleged to have occurred. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG. Weak Delete there is mention in multiple reliable sources of combat during the Sino-Vietnamese War of fighting in or around Lang Son, but none that appear to address the combat as a specific event with in the war, or give the event significant coverage, sufficient to pass WP:GNG.

Edward C. O'Dowd (16 April 2007). Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-134-12268-4.

William H. Mott IV; Jae Chang Kim (3 April 2006). The Philosophy of Chinese Military Culture: Shih Vs. Li. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-4039-8313-8.

Bruce Elleman (20 April 1996). "Sino-Soviet Relations and the February 1979 Sino-Vietnamese Conflict". The Vietnam Center. Texas Tech University.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No argument that there was fighting there, but this page contains minimal detail. Given the scarcity of reliable information about the Sino-Vietnamese War generally, isn't better to just have one reasonably detailed page rather than vague forks like this? Mztourist (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There was fighting, but few people has given special attention to this battle. The name First Battle of Lang Son (Chinese: 第一次谅山战役) might come from orginal research. Antigng (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akilam nine

Akilam nine (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)

Though this is a Book of a scripture Akilattirattu Ammanai, independent notability of the book is questionable. Unreferenced since 2009. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and maybe create a Redirect to Akilathirattu Ammanai. Pretty much all the set of characters and ancillary texts should be dealt with this way as there isn't any scholarly research or general notability for them, anything stemming from the Ayyavazi/their book alone. —SpacemanSpiff 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As with Akilam one if the references listed at the end of the article are in line with criteria no.3 of WP:NB - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. - better if the refs are incorporated into the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Las Vegas

Nina Las Vegas (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: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably the most notable Australian female DJ, especially in the touring/live act side of things. I've cleaned up the article with more independent refs. The-Pope (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She satisfies WP:MUSIC having released two charting albums both of which certified gold for their record sales, has toured nationally and is subject numerous independent verifiable newspaper references. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The-Pope and Dan. Good work on the refs added in the last week or so.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to be trigger happy on the AFD button - the article was less than an hour old when it was nominated. Give it a chance to be developed. -- Chuq (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just noticed it was a new editor's first contribution too, and her first talk page message was a deletion warning. -- Chuq (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and regulations for God-heads (Ayyavazhi)

Rules and regulations for God-heads (Ayyavazhi) (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 third-party RS references found for notability. References in the article are WP:PRIMARY - Akilathirattu Ammanai.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinchai to Vaikundar

Vinchai to Vaikundar (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 RS references found for notability. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping per other related AFD discussions Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katuvai_Sothanai and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinchai to Vaikundar. Nakon 01:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thirukkalyana Ekanai

Thirukkalyana Ekanai (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 RS references found for notability. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katuvai Sothanai

Katuvai Sothanai (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 RS references found for notability. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mythology related article based on Ayyavazhi Mythology. This event is elobrated in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. More over the event is well elaborated in the books which are mentioned in the reference section. Also there are no different views over the same event for different authors. So no inline citations are needed repeatedly. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate in Italy

Real estate in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think this is a stand-alone Wikipedia page. There is nothing of substance in this article. Aaekia (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

This article is a standard used by several nations, we have similar articles as "Real estate in ....", and is connected with other models and templates. The information is still incomplete, but there are already numerous artistic and historical references that are necessary to understand the nature of the real estate market in Italy today. In the article there will be references to the state of the current of real estate market, probably accompanied by numerous tables containing data. All data will be referenced by business newspapers. Since the topic is very complex articulated it takes a bit of time to complete it. I do not consider acceptable the cancellation of this article, also because the topic very relevant and inserted in WikiProject Italy. Roberto73c (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are many 'reliable' sources for this topic, they just need filling in. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Improve – There are lots of improvements needed, but all are attainable and normal for a fledgling article. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 20:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable plus contains a lot of OR right now. Mrfrobinson (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment my apologies to the creator of this article. I believe the reason user:Mrfrobinson has shown up in this discussion is because he is stalking most of my edits. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna World Tour 2015

Madonna World Tour 2015 (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)

• Madonna will release an album called "Rebel Heart (Madonna album) on 6 March 2015

Y And that is verified.

• Performers often go on tour to promote albums

? Yes...

• Madonna is a huge act.

? Go on...

• If she tours, it will be an international tour.

? That would seem a reasonable assumption...

• Therefore, there will be a Madonna World Tour 2015

N Plausible but not verified.

The seven days turn plausible into verified starts --Shirt58 (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC) now. Shirt58 (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a poorly sourced and unverified tour Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and no possible way to currently satisfy WP:NTOUR unless one has a crystal ball or time machine and can tell us from the future that it definitely did happen and was notable. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If only we had one of those... ansh666 23:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Hammer...William 15:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Too soon. Delibzr (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fans who have pre-ordered the Rebel Heart album via Universal Music Denmark's online music shop have been informed that the tour will be officially announced on 2 March 2015, with a ticket pre-sale for the Danish show starting 3 days later. However, until the official tour announcement is made, everything in this article is unsourced, apart from the fact that there will be a tour with stops in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France and Denmark. MsigDK (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Glasgow SECC is no longer used as a concert venue. False itinerary with false venues. No official tour announcement made yet. 11:23, 28 February 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Bible

Wesley Bible (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 or WP:NB Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Around 250 Google hits for "wesley bible" "thomas nelson", but none of them look reliable. It's got a bunch of hits on Google Books, but almost all of them seem self-published. Authorhouse and such. Maybe someone else can find a few reliably published sources, but I'm not optimistic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG after an intensive look. If something is there, it is buried. Basileias (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know about any Thomas Nelson (Edinburgh) version but John Wesley's The New Testament, with Explanatory notes, by J. Wesley is a famous Methodist study bible. See The Cambridge Companion to John Wesley. I'm personally agnostic whether to keep (but rewrite) the stub, move it to a different name or redirect it to John Wesley. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that note. Maybe we should alert WikiProject Christianity? Part of the problem is that there isn't really enough context to tell what this article is supposed to be about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would encourage this to (redirect) become part of the John Wesley article. I am not seeing enough to warrant its own article. Even if one or two sources appear, it probably won't be much more than a paragraph at most. As it sits now, the article is one sentence. Basileias (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to John Wesley#Literary work per discussion above. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think a redirect is completely unnecessary as the topic isn't particularly notable as a severe lack of reliable sources demonstrates. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convention Hall (disambiguation)

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

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

I've deleted a bunch of partial matches, leaving two entries. I'm not even 100% certain the one in Enid qualifies, but if so, it could be handled by a hatnote in Convention Hall. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I guess until more entries are found, that's fine. Through the convention hall which currently redirects there should be redirected to convention center. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I created this years ago because at one time, there were structures known as Convention Hall in many cities across the United States. Just looking through this WP search will give you an idea of this, and there are even more historical ones that aren't in WP. So I saw this growing into a page like Union Station. But a) no one added entries to it as new articles about Convention Hall were added and b) if you strip out partial matches, as has now been done, there is no point. (I hope no one strips the partial matches out of Union Station, because as it stands now that page does a great job of showing how pervasive that name became, in cities large and small, north and south.) Wasted Time R (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Union Station is safe from my deletionist hands, as it is not a generic term like Convention Hall. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps adding Convention center as a generic-term See Also? Note that Convention hall (small h) currently redirects here. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is it clear that the one with the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC name Convention Hall is indeed the primary and is always/commonly known simply as 'Convention Hall' and the others are not commonly known as 'Convention Hall'? Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm wondering if, as brought up in a later, similar Afd, just renaming it List of convention halls might not be the best solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment SIA, either at Convention Hall (by moving PT), or better at "List.." Widefox; talk 22:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not appear to meet notability criteria, even with the provided sources. Nakon 01:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BridgeCity (album)

BridgeCity (album) (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)