Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas_M._Loeb

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

Previous AfD debate was non-consensual regarding inclusion following notability criteria, individual appears to be using wikipedia for self-propagandizing purposes, reopening with hope of reaching definitive conclusion Bdbdd (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Bdbdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Most definitively meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

confused - What exactly is the justification for speedy keep? The page is an orphan, barring a self-produced film, and the edit history suggests reasonable doubt w/r/t CoI Bdbdd (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) it meets GNG, and (b) it seems that this AFD was your first edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which guideline are you using as a line of argument? It seems irrelevant what my first edit is within wikipedia - WP:DNB? My rationale is, I think, clear. The article is non-notable. What is yours? Bdbdd (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD was "no consensus to delete", and the subject easily meets WP:GNG. Your sudden appearance to nom this article for AFD is highly unusual. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. Almost the entire article is about who he is related to, married to, or working with. Read the article and try and find info about him. There's not much, and none of it is notable.--Dmol (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. He is currently the subject of significant media coverage in response to his op-ed in the New York Times. Moonboy54 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment - For some unknown reason the nominators first edit was to AFD this article, On the basis of the last AFD as well as the delete !vote here I think it's unfair for me to close as Speedy Keep, Anyway IMHO the article looks fine & NOTINHERITED doesn't apply but meh Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His political involvement and his involvement in the two films are enough in my mind to meet notability requirements.XavierGreen (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also note, it seems strange to me that the very first edit the nominator made as a wikipedia user was an AFD, to me it seems like he created the account solely for the purpose of AFDing this page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real notability other than irrelevant WP:INHERITED.--Rpclod (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage he gets is more down to his ability to get famous fiancés, rather than anything he's actually doing himself. While the NYT thing is pretty bizarre, nobody would care if they weren't also Sofía Vergara's embryos. WP:NOTINHERITED very much applies here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERITED. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements and for the solid notability generated from continuous political activity and the "Embryo controversy". He's basically doing a very good job of keeping his name in the news. Pax 04:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. There are a lot of articles about him, where he is the subject like see here. Elgatodegato (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person clearly seems to meet WP:GNG, the embryo controversy on it's own is probably almost enough coverage, but combined with other coverage, it's clearly enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I would not have wasted my time writing an article on the lackluster career of this unaccomplished scion of privilege. I am voting keep because his failure to accomplish anything has been so thoroughly documented by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loads of sources, here is one, a profile in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/fashion/Nicholas-Loeb-Sofia-Vergara-Fiance-Forget-All-the-Rest-Hes-Mr-Condiment-.html, passes wp:GNG GuzzyG (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory, and as a test case for Estate tax in the United States. See Paris Hilton and Donald Trump, Jr.. See also condom. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Specialty Vehicles

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

Not Notable. Some recent news stories announce a partnership with another firm, but that's about it. Yes, it has revenue of more than $1 billion, but that alone does not make a company Notable these days. Coverage in outside, independent sources, not based on press releases, would do it, but we don't have them. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is highly subjective these days. The fact that it does have revenue of >$1 billion alone makes it notable, regardless of BeenAroundAWhile's opinion. He is a deletionist, who regularly tags articles for deletion. ASV is a highly respected company doing business in many countries, not just the USA. It is notable as a builder of highly recognizable brands and products... i.e. Spartan ambulances; some of the biggest names in RVs today: Monaco, Holiday Rambler; various buses, etc.. Scoty6776 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick Google News search for this article's subject and found a fair number of independent news sources reporting on its activities. This confers notability. Rcsprinter¹²³ (interview) @ 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News search seems to confirm GNG, and their revenues are very impressive. The sourcing in the article could be better considering what's out there, but that's no reflection on its notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough sources for GNG like here and here Elgatodegato (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Biriyani

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

This article does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The subject is a restaurant with only three local branches, and the references are largely food reviews and a YouTube video. Helenabella (Talk) 05:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable at this time, a News search found results but nothing significant as well as Books. Precautionary searches at Highbeam and the freelibrary found nothing which I suspected. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From what I can gather from the sources I found, it's pretty well known for specializing in a single dish, mutton biriyani, since 1939. I found enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG despite the obvious language barrier:

feature in the Daily Sun
feature in Dhaka Calling
feature in the Daily Star
Lonely Planet (I can't remember if this site is ugc)
Prothom Alo
Dhaka Tribune (link is to the cached version)
little blurb in this travel guide mentions it's an "institution"
Qatar Airways guide - brief mention doesn't really contribute to notability but "Old Dhaka renowned for its Haji Biriyani" just makes me more confident there are even more sources out there — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Helenabella and SwisterTwister: are these enough to reconsider? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there; I think that's a question for the administrators to make - they're best placed to make a call based on the evidence. Thanks for putting all the support in your comment - I'm sure they will find that useful. Helenabella (Talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep Yes, the article has issues and is an orphan, but the Daily Star article seems enough to establish notability, stating that it's very well known, significant, etc. I'm not a foodie but I am guessing restaurants are not businesses that tend to get a lot press outside of reviews and profiles on their chefs. I also imagine there are sources in the local language (which I am guessing is Bengali). —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG: The New York Times, Daily Sun, The Daily Star, Dhaka Calling. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Rod Entertainment

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

Non-notable local company piggybacking on the fame of some of the people it books; see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. None of the reference have in-depth coverage of the subject, and many don't mention the subject at all. All references I could find were press releases, announcements, and directory listings, all failing both WP:INDEPTH and WP:INDEPENDENT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references in the article are from the company (2), trivial and tangential (2), or dead (1). Searches of GNews, GBooks, Austin American-Statesman, HighBeam Research, and ProQuest came up dry. Does not satisfy WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tryphena Sparks

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

Delete: being Thomas Hardy's cousin does not create notability. Any salient info can be manually included in Hardy's article. Quis separabit? 11:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes the WP:GNG with significant coverage which addresses the topic directly in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. She was not only his cousin but a possible lover and also inspiration for one of his poems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see it. She was Hardy's cousin and inspired him and some of his characters may have been based on aspects of her life and personality, but that does not in and of itself create notability which is not hereditary. Quis separabit? 13:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's really irrelevant that she was Hardy's cousin, she has received enough coverage about her life for a stand alone article. The WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only factoid (not even confirmed) I could find of notability is this:

Shortly after his return, Hardy probably entered into a passionate affair with Tryphena Sparks (1851-1890), an attractive sixteen-year-old cousin. Tryphena was the youngest child of James and Maria Sparks, Hardy’s uncle and aunt, who lived in a thatched cottage in the nearby village of Puddletown. Some biographers believe that in the years 1868 to 1870, when she was a trainee teacher in the Puddletown school, she had a romance with Hardy, although there is too little evidence of their relationship. Nevertheless, Tryphena must have exerted some profound effect on Hardy’s life since she appears in disguise in many of his novels and poems. After her death Hardy wrote a poem pervaded with personal memories, entitled, "Thoughts of Phena”. Quis separabit? 13:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sparks has received in depth coverage in a number of books as referenced in the article and there are more than 12,000 Google hits for her. I don't see a problem with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to Thomas Hardy.--Rpclod (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any literary commentary on Hardy seems to also give space to Tryphena Sparks, and to see her as someone more than a minor footnote to him. [1][2][3] There's a credible book, Providence and Mr. Hardy whose central thesis is the significance of this relationship. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thomas_Hardy#Life (there is currently no mention of the subject in that article). Notability is not inherited (as the person immediately above is actually arguing the case it is), however the person is apparently the subject of some of his poems and thus of somewhat more importance than a mere (alleged) romantic interest, and so CHEAPLY recommend "giving space" in Hardy. Pax 02:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from agreeing with the above keep arguments, I see that there are 56 hits in JSTOR. —SMALL JIM 09:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Van Monster

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

The topic is based solely on newspaper gossip and reads like a tourist advertisement for Van Province. Note: Tried to fix the article before realizing I was essentially fixing an advertisement. --92slim (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean you are not instead patrolling anything related to a certain ethnicity, interesting... --176.239.33.146 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's nonsense. I am wary of anonymous IP's though. --92slim (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are transparent, traceable, u are anonymous and have certain enmity that you are not able to hide. Learn to pretend like some other folks do. --176.239.33.146 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I already know it's an unimportant article, traceable IP and possible sockpuppet of User:Tiptoethrutheminefield. --92slim (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation link here, for the interested. --92slim (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient evidence of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources for you. --176.239.33.146 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above IP is a suspected sockpuppet. See here. --92slim (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have a feeling that this might have regional notability (e.g. see CNN story), but I can only read English. I have placed a notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. Milliyet also appears to be a reliable source, but is there enough to meet our notability standards? I don't know. - Location (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course this is a gossip. But even gossips may be notable. See Loch Ness Monster and Martians. While nobody believed its existence, this monster has always been in the news and there were many articles on it. It is notable. (And one thing more, Lake Van area is not a potential touristic area and it is hard to explain the monster as a touristic blah.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable outside of Turkey, unlike the Loch Ness Monster, and as such the deletion is warranted. The creature first appeared in a news article; come on. --92slim (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming it has local notability is not a valid reason for deletion. If a thing is notable, then it is notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point, it's the fact that it originated from a gossipy newspaper article. --92slim (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. The 4th and 5th sources lack significant coverage, merely a listing and a mention. The third source is mostly an interview with the author of the first source. Multiple coverage by the same person does not increase notability. Both news columns are essentially blogs with no actual research and are not reliable sources. --Steverci (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steverci: Actually, articles cannot fail GNG, although topics can. As per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it obviously does not exist as a living creature, it exists as news reports in a wide range of media, from print to TV documentaries, including those that are in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (so the GNG argument expressed above fails). And it exists in visual forms as statues and a strip-cartoon character. A more detailed examination of local media might throw up some sources for this. There was also a Japanese documentary made about it. The proposer's allegation that the article reads like a tourist advertisement is a reason to improve it, not to delete it. Maybe some source places its appearance into its social context (rapidly rising water levels of the lake, economic depression, societal stress due to a change from a rural to urban economy, conflicts between the PKK and Turkish forces, etc.). It is notable enough to have several statues depicting it: including a new bronze one in Van city which has some artistic merit (a rare thing for statues in Turkey), and an older and very bizarre concrete one in Gevash that looks like a dinosaur. Again, a more detailed examination of local media might lead to sources for these. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So The Daily Mail UK type gossip warrants articles for touristic purposes? Sorry, not buying that. --92slim (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990s appearance of the Lake monster is mentioned on p47 in Professor James Russell's "Van and the Persistence of Memory" in "Armenian Van/Vaspurakan", ed. Richard G. Hovannisian, published in 2000. There is enough content in Russell's article to expand the current scope of the Wikipedia article beyond the mere 1990s supposed monster into the long-standing folk belief of monsters dwelling in Lake Van. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content from this source into the article. There is still more to add. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does Delete I already know it's an unimportant article mean, User:92slim? Have you not been to the teahouse yet? This is lack of respect to other people. --141.196.205.35 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. Maybe you should stop sockpuppeting for a change. Investigation link here. --92slim (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It doesn't seem very important, a lake monster from the Turkish hinterlands (Van Province is literally at the back end of Turkey.) But it does have sources and more could probably be found.--Auric talk 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having souces doesn't satisfy notability, because the article is based on a newspaper gossip article from 1889. The video is unverified and the "Armenian vishap" story is not even remotely related. --92slim (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources DOES satisfy notability. "Notability" does not mean "something a Wikipedia editor thinks is important". So, 92slim, notability is unconnected to what you personally think is important or unimportant. The subject is mentioned in newspaper sources and it is mentioned in an academic source. The existence of that last source alone nullifies all arguments to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting non-argument. Read Wikipedia:Notability before writing nonsensical things. --92slim (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples: [4], [5], [6], [7] (short article), [8] (short article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Northamerica1000 which show that the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources over many years demonstrate its notability wrt WP:GNG.
It's been covered outside Turkey by, a print Japanese magazine whose crew included adventure writer Hideyuki Takano [9] & [10], been subject of a USA TV "documentary" [11], has been written on by James Russell, the professor at Harvard [12] etc; the story of the 1889 "sighting" featured in British (Reynolds's Newspaper, London) & USA newspapers [13], [14], and it's featured briefly in multiple English-language books like [15] and [16].
Within Turkey, it's been subject of a book [17] that Worldcat shows ([18], [19], [20]) is published by a university press - YYU, as well as in various press sources, and used as the subject of a theatrically released film [21] & [22]. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karinca Logistics

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

Can find no sources that indicate subject meets WP:CORP NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, this company has not received the sufficient coverage needed and my searches found none (News, highbeam and thefreelibrary) aside from one result at Books. There's the one possibility that sources in Turkish but there would've at least been one good source so it's unlikely this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable organization. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP lacks sufficient coverage and does not appear to have an article in Turkish Wikipedia .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Sahu

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

Nonnotable researcher Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded it. The author removed the prod as well as the adjective budding. It had stated she is "a budding researcher." He/she is mistaken in believing that removing the word improves her notability. They have done nothing to cite her current wiki worthiness. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. PamD 10:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still a Ph.D. student and a junior research fellow with no indication of passing WP:PROF. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dockland Rivalry (AFL)

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

Contested PROD. There are 153 rivalries in the AFL; only a few of them (like the Carlton–Collingwood AFL rivalry) are notable. This article has no references and thus fails to demonstrate why this is one of the notable ones. At present, it is not even mentioned at Rivalries in the Australian Football League. St Anselm (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search for "Dockland Rivalry" brings pages and pages of it mentioned on.... Wikipedia. No news, no books, just Wikipedia. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found on a Google search- lots of mentions of them playing each other, none mention any rivalry. For note, this rivalry isn't even listed on Rivalries in the Australian Football League. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Rivalry is non-existent, trophy is non-existent, though the article is probably well-intentioned (rather than a hoax). IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As nominator, I should point out that there is [www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2015-04-06/WWL-round-1-port this article], which says "Yep, we reckon this rivalry is building into something special and is arguably the best rivalry between two non-Vic clubs right now." But since it was on the Port Adelaide website, I didn't think it constituted independent coverage. St Anselm (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Falls well, well short of the notability required for its own article. Given the lack of references, I'm also opposed to merging the content into Rivalries in the Australian Football League. Outright deletion. Aspirex (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most club pairs can find a reason for a rivalry, but this isn't high on our list of rivalries. The-Pope (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mutual Fund Store

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP notability requirements, art smells like WP:ADMASQ. Recent press coverage is peripheral quotes fron corp officers, quotes in articles are self-pub or routine acquisition news. Brianhe (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely WP:ADMASQ. Elgatodegato (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and don't forget to delete Adam Bold, their article about the boss of the company. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few paltry awards does not make this organization notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Searches found results here (Books), here (News), here (highbeam), here (thefreelibrary, press releases) and a few of the same News links with browser. Unfortunately, the company has not received sufficiently notable coverage at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article can be cleaned up and be a valid stub article. I don't read it as advertising (I'm okay being in the minority on that one). However, if someone would nominate the Adam Bold article as User:Orangemike suggests, I'd be on board because that one reads more like a resume and Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Just be sure to go through it by the numbers.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment nominated Adam Bold for deletion per User:Orangemike and User:Paulmcdonald. — Brianhe (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:TNT. It's spam, but formatted as if it isn't, and badly written at that. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORP; passing mentions, yes, but no significant coverage. Else, stubify. Esquivalience ^t 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request please merge all three deletion discussions, for The Mutual Fund Store, The Mutual Fund Show and Adam Bold. Much easier to discuss all in one place. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci hyperbolic functions

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

Ostensibly this subject has many sources in poor-quality academic journals. However, after combing through them, I found that sources which mention "Fibonacci hyperbolic functions" do so only in passing, and all seem to refer to papers from Chaos, Solitons, & Fractals, which is a rag. I can't find reliable sources which discuss them in any depth. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Hardly qualifies as an article as it does not explain their significance or give any context as to why they are important, it's just a list of formulae and image. But looking at the definitions they are just trivial transformations of the hyperbolic functions by the golden ratio, so entirely uninteresting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- A search with google on "hyperbolicfibonacci functions " comes up 243,000 results

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=-AVOVaKTCY6OyASNqoD4CQ#q=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&spell=1

including CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Second Edition (Poor quality???,ignorant !!) https://books.google.ca/books?id=aFDWuZZslUUC&pg=PA1038&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

There is even a book

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KkLfBQgYfdgC&pg=PA124&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

Very interesting subject indeed. , notability is clearly none issue. --唐戈 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia missing article

Fibonacci hyperbolic functions is an article requested by

Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Maths10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by --

Published on Official Fibonacci Quarterly

Fibonacci Quarter--Official Fibonacci Society

Delete per Blackburne. Trivial modification of standard hyperbolic functions. There is no useful encyclopedic content. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--It is listed in CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics,you are bloody ignorant

https://books.google.ca/books?id=aFDWuZZslUUC&pg=PA1038&dq=hyperbolic+fibonacci+functions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mQtOVYWuCo2nyAS3goCoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hyperbolic%20fibonacci%20functions&f=false

and Mathworld,

Wikipedia:Coverage of Mathworld topics#F Can you explain why content listed in Mathworld should not appear on wikipedia

Commment Provide valid reason an article requested by Wikipedia Mising Science topis should be deleted and remain missing ???????????

Wikipedia missing science topics--唐戈 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment-唐戈-sorry you can't vote more then once. Wgolf (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Regardless of the possible notability of this topic, the content of the article is a pointless explosion of formulas and plots that adds no value to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at one of the sources I can see where these are from. The similarity of Binet's formula to the hyperbolic functions means this straightforward transformation turns the latter into the former, and lets you e.g. generate Fibonacci numbers from them, and so plug them into formulae/properties of those numbers. But that’s the sum total what‘s interesting about them, it could easily be covered by a sentence in one or both of these articles, and none of it appears in this article. So yes, WP:TNT.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept, it desperately needs lots of TeX copy-editing. Stuff like this:

\cdots +(2/5)*{\sqrt {(}}5)*(5+{\sqrt {(}}5))*ln(1/2+(1/2)*{\sqrt {(}}5))^{2}*x^{2}/({\sqrt {(}}5)+1)+\cdots

that ought to look like this:

\cdots +{\frac {2}{5}}{\sqrt {5}}(5+{\sqrt {5}})\ln \left({\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{2}}{\sqrt {5}}\right)^{2}\cdot {\frac {x^{2}}{{\sqrt {5}}+1}}+\cdots

Note

{\sqrt {(}}5)

versus

{\sqrt {5}}

,

ln

versus </math>\ln</math> the vulgar asterisk, and other things. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even after your cleanups that formula needs help. Notice, for instance, that the subexpression

{\frac {2}{5}}{\sqrt {5}}(5+{\sqrt {5}})

can be simplified to

2+2{\sqrt {5}}.

To me this sort of problem is illustrative of why we shouldn't just blindly paste computer-program output into Wikipedia without understanding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is also a factor of

1+{\sqrt {5}}

in the denominator of that term. So the subexpression

{\frac {2}{5}}{\sqrt {5}}(5+{\sqrt {5}})\cdot {\frac {1}{1+{\sqrt {5}}}}

can be simplified to

2

.

--Sammy1339 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even worse. This is a fine example of Mathematics Made Difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially original research. While it is certainly useful and interesting, I don't see an encyclopedia article on the topic. 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Powers (baseball)

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

The article states in the very first sentence that Powers 'is most notable for winning the 1976 College World Series Most Outstanding Player award'. This accomplishment does not satisfy BASE/N. Even if it did, Powers fails GNG. I would recommend a redirect to 'College World Series Most Outstanding Player', as per the precedent established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. L. Smith. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna take a position on this guy just yet... but he did play in the 1975 Pan American Games which might satisfy BASE/N as it has in past afd discussions been considered as sufficient. Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC) After thinking it over, i'm gonna vote for the redirect. Spanneraol (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I'm not crazy about that reasoning. He doesn't magically go from non-notable to notable just by playing in a marginally significant tournament. The standard is GNG, even if BASE/N is often given higher prominence by inclusionists (this is a general comment and not personally addressed to Spanneraol). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per precedence. Never reached MLB and the article does not have any references to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least redirect, and I could see keeping per Spanneraol. It's not that he magically becomes notable for playing in a particular tournament, it's that he may well have had enough coverage to meet GNG regardless, and any Pan-Am coverage may well expand the amount of coverage he received. As a pre-internet player, any coverage about him is not as easy to find, but that is why we have these presumptions of notability. In any case, I am not sure why this is at AfD. A redirect could be achieved by simply editing the article to make it a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's at AfD because 1) I'm not really comfortable with unilaterally redirecting without getting any input and 2) I think Alex would probably just revert me anyway. I get your point about presumptions of notability, but I really don't think the Pan-Am games rise to that level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His body of work makes him notable. Alex (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, coverage by a significant amount of third-party sources makes one notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So 75% of pre-1950 major leaguers aren't notable then, either. Alex (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) We aren't talking about someone who lived pre-1950. 2) They did have newspapers back then. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems reasonable for someone of dubious notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lee (British speaker and author)

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

Fails WP:BIO. This source is the best there is for establishing notability, but I don't think that's sufficient. The others are mostly primary sources. Searches for '"mark lee" accountant' in gnews and gbooks did not find any other sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources and couldn't find any earlier- so Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, seems like an advertisement. Elgatodegato (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete press release, and not notable enough to be worth tryijg to rewrite
Delete Looks like promotion,by someone whose main claim to fame is promotion. No neutral sources that I can find, mostly PR sites. LaMona (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music riots

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

This was prodded, and the prod rationale makes some valid points, but given the topic's potential to be a valid topic, this would benefit from the greater scrutiny of an AfD. The prod rationale was as follows: "This article has been around for a decade without any sufficient citations. When they are provided, they don't support the page's own definition of what a riot is. Given the persistent lack of evidence to support the notion that these pieces caused a riot, the page should be deleted and replaced with a category." Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on the nominator's talk page: If nothing else, then solely the most striking cases of music impacting on the world of art, this particular overlap between the domain of music and society, seems sufficient in itself to justify that the article should be retained. If there is music psychology, how would anyone question the most tangible instances of music sociology? Irrespective of the condition of the article (and a dozen examples are far from few), the topic itself lends significance to the article. (In the worst case, the specific incidents may be divided by whether they were riots as such or other obvious expressions of outrage.) In short, my vote is unequivocally keep. Adam78 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There are 12 riots listed, 3/4ths of which have citations. Of the ones I could check out, all used the word "riot" without qualification or further details, but that should be enough for Wikipedia, they're proper secondary sources, right? The riot at the premiere of Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring is particularly well known, and I see the first listed, while not fitting the usual definition, emptied into a riot that sparked the independence of Belgium, which is no small thing; you might say it's more evidence of the Power of Music, echoing the general point Adam78 makes above. Hga (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete:There only 8 citations on the page, 3 of which are direct links to content where the word "riot" appears. Still, that is not enough for Wikipedia. There must be a definition of what a classical music riot actually is, and according to this page, it is "violent, disorderly behavior". Of the 3 available sources, none of them describe behavior that fits this definition. Most of the entries on this list were not actual riots. They were variations on the well-known practice of claquers. It is extremely misleading to label them as riots. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-known phenomenon which passes WP:LISTN. For example, see The Social and Applied Psychology of Music. Andrew D. (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That citation just demonstrates the reason why this article should be scrapped. The passage you linked to misstates basic historical facts and repeats myths which are untrue. That kind of bad history has no place on Wikipedia.Trumpetrep (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "riot" has many shades of meaning (the OED lists 12, covering various types of extreme emotion and protest). It seems clear that it is commonly used for occasions of this sort, regardless of the details. For another example of this usage, see 10 of the best: Musical riots. The author of that piece, Tom Service, has a doctorate and now lectures and writes on music. If you dispute his scholarship, then you must provide other sources as we can't delete such material purely on your say-so. Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Service is a fine critic who wrote a dissertation about John Zorn, but did you actually read that article? He actually cites viewer's complaints to the BBC for broadcasting Birtwistle's Panic as a riot. Surely you see how ridiculous that is. There are no shortage of people who are happy to make money off of exaggerating what actually happened (and why) at these so-called riots, but that, however, is a separate issue from the one at hand.

Please take a moment to click through to the riot article that is used on the page to define a "Classical Music Riot". You will see how inappropriate the word "riot" is for the behaviors on display in these instances. This page is an indiscriminate collection of information, which is grounds for deletion on Wikipedia. Most of the listed "riots" do not meet the page's own definition of what a riot is. If you look at the Talk page, you will see the history of my suggestions on how to improve this page, which include redefining the word "riot" to one not found in English or another label that is in fact more accurate.

People seem emotionally attached to this page, and I have no objection to fixing it. But for three years no one has taken an interest in improving this page. If proof of a riot is to come in sources like a wildly overblown Guardian blog post or rote repetitions of myths, that is insufficient. So, it seems reasonable to just delete it altogether. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors worked upon the article last year; they just didn't get much done. I turn up now and start producing substantial sources, which seem to be low-hanging fruit. Here's another one which has an extensive account of the matter. It uses the word riot too and links the topic to violent melees which occurred at exhibitions of modernist art: Movement, Manifesto, Melee. The ease with which one can turn up such sources demonstrates that this is just another case where more work is needed. This is quite normal for our topics because only about 1% have been recognised as good quality. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, does not have a deadline and so it is explicit policy that articles may be imperfect. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not misstate facts. There was no concerted effort by any editor other than myself last year to improve this article, as the edit history clearly shows. Hyacinth made three helpful edits one day, but that's it.

Moreover, let's not pretend like the sources you've provided aren't low-hanging fruit for a reason. They are repeating pernicious myths and grossly exaggerating historical events. Music scholarship has grown past the days when this kind of hyperbole was acceptable.

Lastly, you have provided your first good link: to Mr. Cohen's book. Perhaps unwittingly, you provided the very kind of language that should replace the word "riot" in this article, if it is to be kept. On page 147, he lists a handful of pieces that received a "hostile audience response". That is language that accurately describes what is being inaccurately called a "riot" in most of these instances. If this page were to remain on Wikipedia, it should be renamed to accurately reflect the fact that the listed compositions did not always provoke a riot, but rather, particularly notable disapproval from its audience. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't get too hung up on the word riot as, while it seems to be the most common usage, there are other fighting words used such as scandal, storm, battle, melee, disruption, tumult, upheaval, demonstration, fisticuffs, donnybrook, &c. "Hostile audience response" isn't good enough because a key point about many of these events is that there were two sides acting up - the pro and the contra. For example, "...so determined were both sides to fight each other that the music quickly became lost in the battle...". The accounts remind me of what we see here on Wikipedia - disputes between inclusionists and deletionists, such as this very discussion. :) Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With that quote from Cohen, you have (perhaps inadvertently) hit precisely on the reason why "riot" is such a misguided, inaccurate, and unhelpful term in this situation. The fact that these disturbances were often preordained, as either ongoing skirmishes in petty style wars (Nijinsky) or outright publicity stunts (Antheil), is indicative of the fact that nothing resembling a "riot" was in fact taking place. While I grant that "List of Classical Music With Hostile Audience Responses" is not as catchy as the current title, it's far more accurate and welcoming of the type of entries that people seem to want to include.

The fact of the matter is, if you want to create a list of every time a classical piece was met by booing or worse, you'd have something akin to the Yellow Pages on your hands. I have no problem with such a list. I could see real value in an article that marks instances of open hostility to a piece of music. Again, I would beseech you another time to look at the history of this page, the edit history of the article, and its talk page to see that I have no problem with keeping this page, as long as it is accurate.

The problem is that the page clearly defines what a riot is, and then proceeds to name things that do not meet this definition. It's hard to take an editor seriously when he says that we shouldn't get hung up on the operative word in the title of an article. What else is the purpose of an encyclopedia? If words and their meanings are not to be taken seriously, why bother?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article lists a number of well known and often discussed incidents and provides sources. It may be imperfect, but that's no reason to delete it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfection is not why it's being nominated for deletion. It's being nominated because it is an indiscriminate collection of information. The page's definition of a riot is not met by most of the pieces listed on this page. That's why either a different term (and title) should be used, or the page should be deleted.

The fact that these instances are "well known" and "often discussed" is all the more reason to discuss them with accurate language. Take a look at the Talk page, when you have a minute, and click through to the "riot" article that is used to define the term on this page. Clearly, you can see that this page's flaws go beyond imperfection and into a category that does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia without a wholesale revision of the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Fine, then lets improve the list to include accurate language, but this is a much-discussed, highly notable topic in classical music. "Classical music riots" re-directs to this page, btw. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash

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

Crash of military aircraft with fewer than ten deaths, including some non-notable foreign nationals, fails the standard WP:AIRCRASH criteria for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Accidents of military aircraft are generally not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jetstreamer: The aircraft was being used to transport civilians and not in a military capacity. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AIRCRASH: "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable." it doesn't make any difference 331dot, it was a military aircraft flying in a militaristic environment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources confirm that the crash killed two foreign ambassadors to Pakistan. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, "events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources", which is the case. Brandmeister^talk 20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are they covered widely in diverse sources? Will anyone recall this crash in a week's time? Will anything be changed as a result of this crash? This is an encyclopedia, and this article squarely fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do: Time, Reuters, CNN, NY Times, Daily Mail, Bangkok Post, RIA Novosti, etc. I also generally frown upon military accidents, but this is an exception in my opinion. Just like 1996 Croatia USAF CT-43 crash, for instance where Ron Brown and the likes died. An average person somewhere in the US or elsewhere may forget this in a week's time, but encyclopedia is not an average person. Brandmeister^talk 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to properly answer the second and third questions. Ron Brown has his own article and is thus notable per Wikipedia guidelines. No-one onboard this minor military crash has an article. WP:AIRCRASH, widely agreed, therefore suggests this shouldn't be a standalone article. Hey, it doesn't mean it can't be included somewhere else, like in a list of military accidents in Pakistan or something.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have articles because non-English-speakers are disproportionately under-represented here, not because they lack notability in the sense of the GNG. It is not self-evident (because it is not true) that anyone who is notable must already have their own article. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per AIRCRASH: "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The incident is widely reported and appears significant on the basis of current reporting. We can delete the article later if that proves not to be the case. This nomination appears to be in bad faith - the nominator is !voting against this at ITN/C on the basis that the possibly-notable victims (ambassadors from one non-English speaking country to another) cannot be notable because they do not have articles. This is an absurd position, and calling for further deletions in the same connection will merely entrench our systemic bias. I'd call on any passing admin to consider closing this nomination speedily to minimise the disruption to the ITN process, but I don't insist. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I completely refute the bad faith accusation. It fails to meet the criteria established in WP:AIRCRASH. I am not circumventing anything, I am merely running the process correctly, which means to say that an article shouldn't be given a period of grace, just to get onto the main page, just to be deleted immediately afterwards because it clearly fails to meet long-established norms required for a standalone article. If you don't like it, write the articles about the individuals killed in the crash. Otherwise, change WP:AIRCRASH. In any case, take you accusations of bad faith and keep them in a special place where only you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note your objection. I would have been more convinced if you had not tried to dismiss my disagreement with you earlier as the result of my having a bad day. I still say you're wrong. And I believe you reject the accusation. You aren't doing much of a job of refuting it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about how convinced you are. We use guidelines etc to help. WP:AIRCRASH says "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," is needed to keep an article. If you want to change AIRCRASH, please do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, no prejudice to another nomination after the crash's investigation. It is premature to conclude that this will not result in long-lasting coverage or significant changes in aircraft procedures/processes. The individuals here are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages even before this event, and the aircraft was acting as a civilian transport during this incident, so the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS are met here. I wouldn't go so far as to say this nomination was made in bad faith - there are some legitimate questions here. Although it is disrupting to an otherwise postable event. Mamyles (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asserting the individuals in question should have their own articles, can you demonstrate why? Can you create these articles? If you do, and they meet WP:N, no problems and this AFD goes away. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of ambassadors was discussed here and summarized into this essay.

In a nutshell, any ambassador or head of mission is considered to satisfy notability guidelines if there is a corresponding relations article between the two countries. That is true for all four ambassadors involved: Norway–Pakistan relations, Pakistan–Philippines relations, Pakistan–Poland relations, and Netherlands–Pakistan relations. Mamyles (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, and per the essay you're quoting: surely you can write an article about at least one of the dead ambassadors? We have a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In another nutshell, the wording of the Wikipedia guideline (AIRCRASH): "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. That an article does not yet exist does not indicate an individual is not notable: that must be determined by the presence of reliable sources. As an aside, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and not a guideline, but I agree that its criteria are reasonable. Mamyles (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A crash involving notable foreign government officials is notable. Many ambassadors have articles which suggests that being an ambassador merits an article, even if the ones in this crash don't yet have them(likely due to systemic bias issues, as AlexT suggests). 331dot (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AIRCRASH: "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)," please show me the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will simply note that AIRCRASH states "This page provides advice on article content. It contains the opinions of one or more WikiProjects regarding the content of articles within their area of interest. This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline". 331dot (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And all I've asked, many times, is for one you supporters to supply evidence that one of the individuals onboard is actually notable per WP:N. They were flying somewhere to open a ski-lift. We're really pushing the boundaries here if we think a handful of minor-minor foreigners, none of whom have Wikipedia articles per WP:N, in a minor crash in a military aircraft in Pakistan is worth an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Leif Holger Larsen has an article now, which seems to be what TRM has asked for. So does that mean this AFD can "go away" as he has stated in this discussion? Everymorning talk 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does. I'm grateful to you for doing it, unlike the bad faith commentators above, all of whom could take a leaf out of your book and try to improve the encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I didn't create the article, I just stumbled upon it when Googling Larsen. Everymorning talk 21:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find 331dot's argument compelling: that being an ambassador merits an article, even if the ones in this crash don't yet have them (emphasis added). This would meet the WP:AIRCRASH criterion - note that the wording "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia" does not require that the individual in question actually has their own biography page right now, merely that they should be of sufficient notability to merit one. The determining factor here is whether they are notable enough for a biography, not that a biography should exist. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, nonsense. That an ambassador merits an article per se is nonsense. But thankfully it's a moot point as one of the Norwegians is now up in lights so job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn now a "notable" individual killed in the crash has an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:AIRCRASH doesn't apply to stand-alone crash articles like this one. As it says:

This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles.
By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.
"Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.

- Ahunt (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. No wonder I hate AIRCRASH so much. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dream Girl (TV series)#Production_and_casting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Dutta

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

Actress who seems to fall under much too soon. Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article was created as a redirect and looks like someone else made it into a article. Wgolf (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dream Girl (TV series)#Production_and_casting. Ch an der 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it seems she hasn't had that many roles and News didn't find anything promising but most seem to mention Dream Girl. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is a combination of a snow delete and a spedy deletion under criterion G5. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tharam Marindhi

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

Film with no notability to be found-as a note was previously deleted as Taram Marindi. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has been tagged as G5 so it'll probably be deleted soon but I'll comment anyway. Some searches found results here and here but nothing looks exactly promising. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 6001–7000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6523 Clube

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to List of minor planets: 6001–7000. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: Insufficient sources found. Praemonitus (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GetLunchin

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

Website with questionable notability that comes across as a ad also. Wgolf (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like an advt, just info - don’t delete - The references are all different and they have been mentioned multiple times by very well known and respected publications. I have also seen their Twitter handle, they have a lot of celebrities endorsing them for the quality of their food as well as celebrities such as Manoj Bajpai Kunal Vijaykar Sanjay Gupta (director) Karan Patel following them. BuzzingaWiki talk BuzzingaWiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning more towards delete for now - At first look, the article appears to have several refs but my searches found a lot of these same ones so it seems the website hasn't received that much attention and there's not much information so it may be too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only finding one source that provides significant coverage. Does not meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – highly promotional without notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Sources don't establish subject as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Sphilbrick per CSD G5 (creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make-Up (2002 film)

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

Another film I remember being deleted before from here, anyway questionable notability and the refs seem to be only "watch this film" Wgolf (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing (aside from a Wiki mirror) to suggest this film is notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hakro

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

I could not establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Google pulled up a lot of other things the term can refer to, but perhaps this is a linguistic issue. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced since 2009; nonverifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Sphilbrick per CSD G5 (creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gammathu Goodacharulu

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

Film with questionable notability with only refs to IMDB and youtube. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'redirect to film director. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 as the creator was a block-evading sockpuppet. I have recreated this as a redirect as suggested below. Hut 8.5 21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iddharu Iddhare

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

Film with questionable notability with basically no reliable sources Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to film director. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as pointed above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:JamesBWatson per CSD G5 (creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayam

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

A film with little notability mentioned (as a note this was a page deleted before by a sock puppet.) Wgolf (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it does say it is a Telugu language film, but does not include the Telugu name. I point this out because there could be plenty of sources in Telugu that don't come up when searching for "Vijayam." Perhaps someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force could provide assistance? Elgatodegato (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to film director. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of media adaptations of Journey to the West. Left history below in the expectation that one its no longer TOOSOON we will be needing it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the West (2016 film)

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

delete per WP:NFF, principle photography hasn't begun, the director hasn't even been named. Timmyshin (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of media adaptations of Journey to the West. Per WP:NFF it is too early to support its own article now. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep; reasonable expectation of notability. Also WP:GNG (coverage) OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- userfy (changed the vote after reviewing the WP:NFF guideline.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: principal photography hasn't begun, so it fails WP:NFF. Okay with moving to draft/user space. ― Padenton|✉ 21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until principle photography begins. MarnetteD|Talk 23:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenon Day

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

Subject fails GNG. With all those links in the "Reference" section, it looks impressively sourced at first, but when you click on the links to the sources, it soon becomes apparent that only one of them actually mentions this "Parthenon Day", and it's the one that belongs to an organization promoting it. The rest of them are sources about the Parthenon or the larger dispute between the UK and Greece over the Elgin Marbles that don't mention this event. Google searches also confirm, as searches for "Parthenon Day" bring up things like these [23] [24] from regular Google, this [25] from Google News, and these [26] [27] [28] from Google Books. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. When deleted the description of the marbles, the article basically becomes empty. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the "day" is much of a thing, and the information consists of a single web page. I don't doubt that there was activity that day, but it doesn't seem to have gained great attention. The plight of the Elgin Marbles and the request for their return is well known and the article Elgin Marbles covers that sufficiently. A link to this "day" could be added there, but probably is not really needed. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This particular term appears to be the invention of one author and was not widely used. However, it is probably be wise to mention the 1997 official request in the marbles' article, which is not done at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Association of European Operational Research Societies. Davewild (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Operations Research Society

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

Tiny society, no evidence at all that this may even approach notability. No independent sources (only source is homepage). Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we avoid to have this discussion over and over again each time a new national Operations Research Society is added? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatian Operational Research Society and in particular the last comment (Keep all). Bfortz (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That AfD was closed "no consensus" with very little participation. This society has (according to their own website) 115 members. There are no sources. Pray tell me why this is notable and why we should have articles on all these tiny societies. --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources. Even if it did, the subject is unlikely to meet WP:ORG notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are references. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to parent Association of European Operational Research Societies. The organization does decent job it its area. 115 members is not a drawback. We have punk bands of 3 and less with articles. It is notable because it coordinates research and does other things in a major field of science on a national scale. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can certainly live with a redirect. As for the other comments, I gingerly suggest that being a member of a band is not the same thing as being a member of a society, the difference seems obvious to me. And I don't really know of any scientific society that "coordinates research". All that such societies do is organize meetings where members exchange ideas and report on their work and, sometimes, publish a newsletter of scientific journal. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think meetings and idea exchange are for? If you think they are for idle curiosity, while I think they are for coordinating the research. "Coordinating" does not necessarily mean rigid centralized planning. Also, it seems that you did not read the article you voted for deletion: "working groups have been formed" is definitely coordination in my limited understanding of English language. So is publishing overviews, roadmaps etc. BTW, you surely noticed that I am not voting for a separate page; I am voting against deletion. I do agree that all these activities are routine, and I don't see WP:GNG satisfied. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society meetings are absolutely not for "coordinating research". You go to a scientific meeting to keep informed about the state of your field and what is currently being done. "Working groups" is just more of the same, but on a more focussed subject. That's not "coordinating", unless you really have a definition of coordinating that is much larger than the rest of humanity has... Believe me, I have participated in many scientific meetings (including of "working groups") and quite a few meetings designed to coordinate research (in the sense of hammering out collaborative projects or deciding which projects should get funded or not) and those are very different kinds of meetings. --Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I admit that "research coordination" may have a technical meaning I am not aware of. Still, the AORS does carry out some useful activities. Or not? Ca it be I am conflating the terms 'coordination' and 'collaboration'? "Working groups": is this collaboration ? In general, you start making me wonder whether the scientific societies are of any use at all? Say, what does ACM do that AORS does not (even in smaller scale)? What are the criteria to look for when judging scientific societies besides WP:GNG? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are WP:ORG and WP:GNG. "Useful" or "worthy" has nothing to do with it. I haven't looked, but I'd be amazed if there are no sources on the Association for Computing Machinery. Yes, in principle the types of activities that the two societies engage in are similar, but as I said, that has nothing to do with notability. And working groups in such societies are not even "collaboration". Collaboration is if you and I decide to jointly carry out a research project, or if you provide help with some aspects of my project or the other way around. Scientific societies (and working groups) really are all about information exchange. Some of the largest societies may also have the means and cloud to lobby government agencies and some even do, but if they do, that would with certainty result in coverage in reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Exactly for the reasons given by David Eppstein in the previous debate, EURO and IFORS are umbrella for independent national societies in an important academic field, namely:

"Each of these is recognized by the International Federation of Operational Research Societies (the umbrella international organization for this discipline) as the major national society for their country — see the IFORS list of national societies [29] (and in the case of Italy, see the Wikipedia article for the mismatch between what IFORS calls the society and what we call it — it's the same society under a different name). I don't want to suggest that any academic society that calls itself a national-level society is notable, but I think the ones in major disciplines (e.g. the topic of entire university departments) that are internationally recognized by their peer societies as the main society for their country are notable. As for the invocations of WP:BRANCH above: I think it would be a mistake to merge these into the "parent" organization. They are not branches of IFORS (the way AEORS seems to be). They are independent societies that happen to hold memberships in IFORS, in the same way that people and corporations might happen to hold memberships in these societies. In particular, I think that recognition by IFORS should count towards notability as being independent of the subject, because these societies are separate entities rather than being part of IFORS. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Bfortz (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point, the AEORS article contains a list of its members (kind of going against the spirit -or even the letter- of WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Expanding that list with a one-line description of each society's particulars would augment the AEORS article. Just look at the different articles on the national societies, they are basically identical, repeating the same information, just changing a date here and there and the organization's name. Much better to condense that into a list in the AEORS article. Or, if you invoke BRANCH, move all of it to the IFORS article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italy has about 60 million inhabitants, and the Italian Operations Research Society has 200 members, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Operations_Research_Society. Austria has about 9 million inhabitants, so 110 members is not a tiny value. Additionally observe that the Italian academics in Operations Research are (Source: Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, http://hubmiur.pubblica.istruzione.it/web/universita/home ): 44 full professors, 43 associate professors and 50 assistant professors (137 in total), which shows the representativeness of the Italian society. (Silvano Martello, full professor of Operations Research, University of Bologna, http://www.or.deis.unibo.it/staff_pages/martello/cvitae.html ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.82.103 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So do you feel that a society from Liechtenstein only needs two members to be notable? And it would be really weird if a learned society would not have members that are professors and such. Even if each and every one of those professors would be notable, that still would not make the society notable. All you are showing is that the Italian society is as lacking in notability as the Austrian one. (And please note that notability in the WP sense has nothing to do with "worthy", "deserving", or "important"). --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AEOR. I still believe that national-level organizations for major academic disciplines such as this one should be notable, but in this case I can't find any sources giving enough nontrivial detail about the organization and its history to support an article. It doesn't appear to be in the Wiley Encyclopedia (as many of its sister organizations are) and even its own web site doesn't have much. We can source its membership in IFORS to the IFORS web site, but that's only a directory listing and doesn't tell us much about how the society operates. With no sources, what can we use to build a properly-sourced article? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is some recognition but it is not notable enough. Support redirect to Association of European Operational Research Societies. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1774 Kulikov

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect. Mentioned in one paper as a potential flyby target [30] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1334 Lundmarka

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak redirect. The subject of an old orbital study [31] and part of a newer group lightcurve study [32] but there's still not much of interest to say about this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1938 Lausanna

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect. One study specifically about this object [33] but I don't think it's quite enough. Google scholar also gave me a hit for a paper with a Swedish title, but it turned out to be a spurious copy of the same study. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1498 Lahti

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect. Part of one group study [34]; it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Larink

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: concur with above. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1776 Kuiper

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: no suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1697 Koskenniemi

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources found to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1929 Kollaa

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Contains non-trivial info. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar finds many hits discussing the connection between this object and Vesta, including one in Science, and a collection of three related papers specifically about this object (one already cited in the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As noted by Staszek and David. -- Kheider (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple sources of scholarly information available. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, per all above. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nate Kemner Band

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

Non-notable band. Prod contested by article creator, who is apparently the band's founder and namesake. Previously speedied as Nate Kemner Band. Creator has created and recreated a long list of articles on bands with which he has been involved--all of them were speedily deleted, a couple (here and here) have been salted, and he himself at one point earned himself a 24-hour block for his efforts. This one probably merits an A7-speedy as well. --Finngall ^talk 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found absolutely nothing to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - G3, blatant hoax. Giant Snowman 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nevin (swimmer)

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

This article was created by a newly registered user "Pnevin"; it appears to be a complete fabrication, and was newly created on April 27, 2015. The article asserts that a Canadian swimmer by that name competed in the 1976 Summer Olympics; Sports-Reference.com lists no Olympic athlete by that name in 1976, or any other year. The article also asserts that Nevin won gold medals at the 1978 Commonwealth Games; GBRathletics.com lists no Commonwealth Games medalist by that name in 1978 or any other year. The article includes a category for California Golden Bears men's swimmers, but the most recent media guide for UC Berkeley Cal Bears men's swimming lists no letterman by that or any similar name. This article appears to be an outright fraud or hoax. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British International School Lagos

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

fails WP:GNG. Online search brings up only self published sources.. I have not been able to get a single reliable source discussing this topic in a significant detail. Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ I have NO Idea why a 3 line article which makes NO assertion of notability whatsoever is exempt from WP:A7. The only references are to the organizations site, including it's "contact us" page. I made an good faith early close of this which was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools saying that notability was presumed? I overturned my early close to let it runs its course, but this is ridiculous. Can anybody point me to the actual discussion where schools were exempted from WP:A7? All I can find is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded, but still fails to assert notability. "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed." is not encyclopedic content. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After getting some TLC, the article looks better. I still question the encyclopedic value of it, but it is now more than a 3 line article about a school that could not find a German teacher. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Articles_on_Schools_exempt_from_WP:A7 which is challenging the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Common outcome that presumes notability for all senior high schools/sixth form schools and schools with senior high/sixth form components. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the status quo does not change, Keep due to the common outcome of keeping senior high schools/schools with senior high components. Also keep because even though the content of the book Womanismus als Methode der Interpretation deutscher literarischer Texte (a quotation of an English-language report embedded within a German book, of a person who interviewed the principal of the British School) is referring to the German classes, the fact that the book and the reporter it quotes gave attention to the school adds to its notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not an appropriate rationale at WP:AFD, it ensures that the status-quo is kept, regardless of how it was achieved. No where is there a consensus that "notability is presumed", and "we have not deleted them in the past" does not prove this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in theory each article should be judged in its own merits, but precedent is a reality. WP:OTHERSTUFF explicitly says that one can compare this article to other articles in certain cases to say "this article did it, so this should too" - for example, if a similar article survived an AFD. If "commonoutcomes" wasn't an appropriate rationale for AFD there would be no point to its existence. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary school, and that is enough. (The article at present is actually fairly good, as they go.) Though worded merely as coon outcomes, this is actually one of the most stable guidelines we have--there have been no exceptions in at least the last 5 years, except for schools with a dubious physical existence--very few guidelines can claim as much practical consensus. The reason for not deleting articles on secondary schools is that most of them -- and this an example, can be shown to be notable with sufficient work. It's also part of a very important compromise. The other half of the compromise was not normally including articles on primary and intermediate schools. When I joined in 2006, we did not have this compromise, and the result was that dozens of articles on both appeared at AfD every day. The result depended on the relative energy of the two sides to the discussion. was possible to delete any non-famous school by saying the references were trivial; it was possible to keep almost any school by looking hard enough and saying the references were not trivial. As i showed at the time, the overall results was not better than random. This was a ridiculous misuse of the time of many good editors on both sides of the discussion. Since then, they've been out of the list of AfDs, and we are no worse off overall. I point out that a further reason for keeping these is that they are good articles for beginners, and in particular good projects for secondary school classes--we need to attract new people , especially at the age group, for they may stay with us for many years. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to WP:NSCHOOL, secondary schools are NOT inherently notability. Notability must be proven according to WP:ORG or WP:GNG and I don't see any such proof.--Rpclod (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Satisfies GNG: sources are cited . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary schools are not automatically notable, but there is a strong working consensus that they are presumed to be notable. As I said in another venue, two hours spent in a library in Lagos would almost certainly lead to the discovery of many new sources for this article. But what we have now is sufficient. As DGG notes, we have here an informal "grand compromise" regarding redirecting most articles about elementary schools (except those of historic or architectural significance) and keeping almost all articles about secondary schools, except cases of fraud and home schools. And it works. Trying to upset the apple cart is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, informal grand compromises that contradict the actual written guidelines? If the apples are rotten, the cart should be upset.--Rpclod (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:N guideline is very careful to say that the GNG is not applicable in all cases. Consensus is what makes a WP guideline, not formal status. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I found this one, published by the British High Commission Abuja. I also found Encomium Magazine, Information Nigeria, BBC News, The Punch Newspaper, UNICEF, News watch Times, The Nation Newspaper, gistmania, News Punch, Guardian Newspaper, The Octopus News, allAfrica News, to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for that! Even though it seems like some of these articles don't have significant coverage, at least two of them do and I've cited them in the article. BTW the Unicef article is talking about Lekki British International School which is a different school in a different part of Lagos. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "BIS", as it is fondly called is one of the most popular secondary schools in Nigeria. Just wanted to give some primary/raw information on the article since this afd is certainly not short of references and guidelines. Isakaba (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as hoax Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daddii

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

Suspected hoax. If this band was so notorious, then why doesn't it turn up any hits on GBooks? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blast from the Past (column)

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

Looks like just a long list of names which will never be complete. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the "references" actually discuss the column and indicate its notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we'd need secondary sources referring to the topic itself. — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Redirect to the article on the column's author, Tamil film historian Randor Guy. It can certainly be spoken of and sourced there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Whitenack

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

Non-notable minor league player, nothing to make it pass GNG. Wizardman 11:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league player with no references or citations to indicate verifiable notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spanneraol (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what little coverage there is appears to be routine. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably, the Chicago Tribune article linked in our article is non-routine. But even that is as much about Kerry Wood as it is about Whitenack, and everything else I have found is routine. Rlendog (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.--Yankees10 16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG minor league player.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Schwartz (entrepreneur)

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

Advert for non notable trader. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but none are suitable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. He is quoted a few times but nothing about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not seem to be primary topic for any of the references, notability not backed up. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that his name appears in articles does not make him notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator says, he has been used as an opinion piece once or twice, but nothing more. I can't see any way of writing a neutral article and salvaging this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - subject has been frequently quoted by the press as an expert, which conveys some level of notability. However, I was unable to find any independent, reliable sources that are even slightly biographical, so there is nothing to write an article around. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atop the Fourth Wall: The Movie

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

As a (former) fan of the Nostalgia Critic and ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com, it slightly hurts to nominate this article for deletion. Unfortunately, the film lacks coverage in reliable sources. This could theoretically be merged to Channel Awesome, but either way, a new Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie this isn't. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no RS; only news coverage is online fundraiser to fund the film. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing good aside primary links and the crowdfunding. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON; we don't even know a quarter of the plot of this yet (agreed with NLH5 it hurts to vote! this way, but thus we must). Only primary sourcing so far too. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Though I stopped watching Channel Awesome a few years ago, and I was never a fan of Linkara anyway. In fact, I had no idea that Linkara was making this film until this article was created and I nominated it for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now as simply being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. It mmight nerit a mention over at the Lewis Lovhaug article, but not a separate article. allow undeletion or recreation once filming begins and if it gets the requisite media coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The target for redirect does not seem plausible, but in any case can be discussed separately.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Tang

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

One term mayor of a suburban council (elected by the other councillors) a decade ago, very little in the way of sources. Equivalent figures have been resoundingly deleted in the past. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reviewed article and agree with nom. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears he actually served twice as mayor (2007–08, 2010) but that has no bearing on his notability, for which there is no reasonable claim. Frickeg (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to City of Glen Eira. - Location (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gollapinni

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

None of the people in this list have an article. Many have no descriptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete - Multiple searches found nothing good aside from a few results from Books that confirms such as Ramachandra Sastry but there's not much to go from there. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state. It disambiguates no existing articles. There might be a possibility of recasting this as an article about the name, but that would require actual verifiable sources. older ≠ wiser 11:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newspapers that reprinted Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178

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

I do not see the necessity of such a page. It is just a needless list of newspapers that can certainly just be merged with another related article, at best. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as really, really trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a trivial list. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Merge Similar in concept to this article List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons . Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extremely trivial and not needed. CitiV (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Like Chris said, this seems similar and of equal magnitude to the Posten cartoon incident. Do what is best, but I thought I would explain my reasoning for creating the page. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't say so much that they re-printed issue 1178, but that they showed the cover, in some cases as an illustration for an article, which is pretty common when reporting on something that was published. LaMona (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone else. 75.80.160.109 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mullin/Ashley Associates

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

Non-notable company with searches finding nothing good including here (News, only press releases) and here (Books, business listings). Searches with browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing as well. Simply no significant or in-depth coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not indicate that WP:ORG notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by an SPA; references are incomplete and therefore might as well not exist. I found one so-called article about them, but it turned out to be their press release on a PR site [35] which I also found on the company site. LaMona (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rien Pipe

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

Product appears to lack notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another advert by an SPA who added links to this article in Nicotine_withdrawal ("such as Rien Pipe...") and Smoking cessation. If this is deleted, the clauses with those links ~~should also be~~ have been removed by me. LaMona (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaMona. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source One Television

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

Previous discussions ended as 'no consensus' due to procedural errors / lack of participation, not a good debate ending in differing opinions. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I closed the previous discussion today as no consensus because you were using the notification system to canvass and I don't think that it is accurate to describe that as a procedural irregularity.Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not using the notification system to canvass (not deliberately or with that in mind anyway) and I wrote 'procedural error' not 'procedural irregularity' - meaning my error. Boleyn (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Faith TV, which presently does not mention the news program.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Faith TV's article doesn't mention the program because as with many Christian television programs, it was aired under a brokered programming arrangement where it paid for Faith TV to air it; likely it also aired on other channels under the same arrangement. Otherwise, show has a basic unremarkable 'interviews-videos-interviews-check-out-our-website' structure most music shows of this ilk have. Nate • (chatter) 22:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate's sound and accurate analysis above. Cavarrone 09:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are two deadlinks, a primary source, and an FCC document.--Rpclod (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dubstep. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tempa

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

Except for a mention on www.residentadvisor.net, I was unable to find any coverage of this obscure company. The Dissident Aggressor 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dubstep. It is only visible in the context of dubstep and what there is about it is fully covered in that article. This article "Tempa" has been around since 28 July 2006, so there is no question about adequate time. The discography is not verifiable, nor does it contribute more than the text does at Dubstep. --Bejnar (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minimal reference does not support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing aside from Books (not much) and this is simply another case of a record label with little to no attention to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Label is cited by multiple references (I added one) indicating the label was highly important to the creation of an entire genre of dance music. As such, it is notable, or as WP:N says, "worthy of notice". By length of operation (at least 11 years) and number of notable artists signed (currently 7 with articles, and most certainly not a walled garden as often seen with truly non-notable labels) this label is clearly also "one of the more important indie labels" as defined by WP:MUSICBIO #5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for references in addition to the ones provided and couldn't find anything to support notability. A brief mention in the book is not significant coverage. It should be used as a reference in the dubstep article to to support the subject's inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a skull

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

Prodded for WP:GNG and WP:NSONG with no references and no claim of notability. Prod removed with the comment, "this is definitely relevant, and the capitalization is correct per the original usage. this is one of the first "memes" -- thus its historical relevance. (I deleted the recommendation for article deletion)" Now brought to AfD for further discussion. Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I know this song exists, and the user who removed the prod was correct, this was one of the first "memes", in the middle 1990s, before most of the people who use "memes" were even born. However, the only references I can supply are to the magazine itself. I had the actual song on an AP coverdisk myself from the middle 1990s to the middle 2000s, but I fear I have since thrown it away. I might still have the actual file saved on my computer (I transferred the entire hard disk of my A4000 to a modern Linux PC before the A4000 died), but I'm not at all certain about it. JIP | Talk 19:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Valhalla: Before the War at the risk of WP:COATRACK --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The calls for keep above have no policy-backed rationale. If the subject is indeed important, it will have received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. I would entertain a redirect to Before the War (as a useful search term) but only if this subject was mentioned and reliably sourced within the article, which it is not. czar ⨹ 21:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single [{WP:RS]], not sure why it is notable Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONG. The article has no references at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. Random86 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete the articles on Nisse and Kalle, while keeping the article on Wilfried Sauerland Davewild (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nisse Sauerland

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

Non-notable boxing promoter. Recently created addition to brother and father articles all of which suffer from the same problem. The company which they apparently own was deleted on A7 grounds - notability not established. The only reference in the article is to the companies website - his name does come up on searches but mainly has being someone's promoter which does not establish his own notability. Fails WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am seriously considering adding Kalle Sauerland (brother) and Wilfried Sauerland (father) to this debate but that depends on initial response to this one. There is a single reasonable source in the Kalle Sauerland article but that is about Wilfried Sauerland which does not have that reference in the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If any of these three are notable, it's Wilfried. There is at least one significant source on him (reliability unknown) and he was inducted into the IBHOF. Normally we ignore martial arts halls of fame, but this is far more significant and independent than most. Its own article may be of uncertain WP notability, but many in the boxing community consider it significant. I didn't see any significant coverage on Nisse or Kalle, although I only did a quick search and focused on sources in English. Papaursa (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasoning above although, also by the reasoning above, am inclined to Keep the Wilfried Sauerland article if significant sources can be found:

Peter Rehse (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This should not have made it up to AFD. The amount of news of him as a promoter on google is astounding [36]. He is a confirmed international promoter. [37] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fight promoter who promotes fights is not automatically notable, any more than anybody else is notable simply for doing their job.

Keep Wilfried, Delete Kalle and Nisse Except for Wilfried, the others lack significant independent coverage. Being mentioned as promoting a fighter or fight card is just doing one's job and are passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve the subject is notable and interesting Chunlinc (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chunlinc, I'd like you welcome you to Wikipedia. I would also like to recommend some pages you should become familiar with. The general notability guidelines can be found at WP:GNG, a description of what makes a source reliable is at WP:RS, and a list of arguments to avoid at deletion discussions can be found at WP:ATA. Wikipedia notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Merely liking something or claiming it's interesting or notable is not sufficient for an article to be deemed notable--it must have the necessary independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on Wilfried, Delete Nisse and Kalle I don't see the significant coverage required to show the first two are notable. Their coverage seems to be passing mentions and routine sports coverage with independence sometimes also being an issue. I think Wilfried is close, so I'm going with keep. Papaursa (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 21:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only reference is subject's own website. May be self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States of Latin Africa. Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Africa

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

Terms like 'Francophone Africa' or 'Lusophone Africa' are widely used by many reliable sources, but the entire concept behind "Latin Africa" seems to be original research. "Romance-speaking Africa" returns exactly 49 results on Google, mostly from wikipedia mirrors, and Latin Africa is only ever used to mean the ancient Roman-ruled north Africa. The use of the term to refer to contemporary African countries where a Romance language is official seems to be a creation of this article. eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly rename. The concept of 'Latin Africa' may not be anywhere near as widely established as that of Latin America, but given the fact that a United States of Latin Africa was apparently at one time seriously proposed, it does seem to be an idea deserving of an article. Robofish (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the only usage refers to one historical proposal, it might be better to simply redirect the article to United States of Latin Africa.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash! ^(Y) 03:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is a neologism, or maybe redirect, to United States of Latin Africa Spumuq (talq) 14:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoreLogic

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

Article does not show any particular notability. Just another business. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article in October 2010, and have only made 2 edits since, to fix a miscapitalization and put in their 2012 revenue last year. The article that is there now looks very different from the one I wrote, although through the lens of hindsight if I could do it again I'd have summarized the extremely detailed product list I first included. CoreLogic is a gigantic real estate data firm, with the largest real estate databases in the country.[[38]] Their 2014 revenue was $1.4B.[[39]] I'll add this and more info when I have time.Timtempleton (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and Keep Remove the junk sources and promotion, leaving a stub. A company with more than $1 billion is clearly "worthy of notice" and I do see some sources in Google Books[40][41] and local publications.[42][43] CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a significant, well-known company. References show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:LISTED. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pobal

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

Sourced primarily to the network. These links are no longer working. Even the press release is gone. Indeed, the most remarkable thing about this show seems to be that it was axed within a year of starting, along with six other shows. Greykit (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prime time programme on main Irish TV channel.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't prove notability or verifiability. --Greykit (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus wept! In fact, according to your idea of notability it would appear that Jesus himself would have to feature on the programme in his second coming for it to be notable. I repeat, "prime time programme on main channel" in Ireland. That IS notable in and of itself.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No indication of notability by WP standards. The only 3rd party resource has a mere mention. MacRùsgail, if you have access to resources to support this page I'll gladly get behind that. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all references are deadlinks, except one article which merely lists the subject once among other items.--Rpclod (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The holland hotel

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

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

No evidence of notability. Refs are own web-site and one from a ghost investigation - nothing notable there. Reads like a promo piece. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above- delete. Also, if kept, it would need to be redirected to The Holland Hotel. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I updated all the links, so that none point back to the property. I do agree that it should be under The Holland Hotel and am trying to fix it. Nvanwinden (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding The Holland Hotel, duplicate article created at proper address. Should this AFD result in a keep, the new article should be deleted to make way for a move of the original article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So @WikiDan61:, should I delete The Holland Hotel, or can we delete The holland hotel? Nvanwinden (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nvanwinden: The article should exist at The Holland Hotel, but since you created The holland hotel first, that is technically the article we should keep. To manage this, The Holland Hotel would be deleted and The holland hotel would be moved to the proper title. But that's a fair amount of work for an article that may be deleted. I'll leave it to an admin to decide whether the title mixup should be fixed now, or wait until the AFD has run its course. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The holland hotel redlinks the AFD heading and that could cause confusion. On reflection, it is best to leave things as they are and sort them after the AFD has been closed. Just Chilling (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: @Joseph2302:My argument for KEEP is as follows. The Holland Hotel was designed by the architect, Henry Trost of Trost and Trost who was internationally renown for his work all over the southwest in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He is believed to be one of the most significant architects of his time in the region. ^[1] The design for the Wikipedia page was taken from several notable nearby Trost and Trost hotels, such as El Paisano Hotel or the Gadsden Hotel.

The Holland Hotel is instrumental in anchoring the town of Alpine and is even mentioned on the Alpine, Texas Wikipedia page. It is a Texas Historic Landmark, adding to its "notability".

Of interest to believers in the paranormal, several ghost investigations have been done and the Holland Hotel has been featured on several TV shows, which I am sure another user would be able to add, however the ghost sightings are founded and a paranormal study from Austin, Texas linked in the footnotes.

Nvanwinden (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.elpasohistory.com/hall-of-honor/2-uncategorised/146-hoh-henry-c-trost

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given Nvanwinden's explanation that this place is registered as a State Historic Place, and is notable among those who put credence in such things as a haunted place that has been showcased on television programs, I'd say that its notability is sufficiently established. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good initial nomination, but I think it has now been improved to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined more towards keep - I live on the eastern side of Texas so I'm not familiar with this but a Texas Historic Site makes me inclined towards keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Leadership and Management

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "There are no references to verify any notability. WP:ADMASQ. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Without those it may not remain here" Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No opinion on notability, but since the current article contains zero acceptable sources, the only way to enforce WP:V is to delete the entire page. CorporateM (Talk) 01:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are here to decide on notability. Not having independent sources is not a reason for deletion and does not contravene WP:V - this is not an article about a minor celebrity or band which is likely to attract fancruft. The organisation's official website is not automatically an unreliable source unless it makes outrageous claims, which this one clearly doesn't. Professional associations in major countries are usually considered to be notable. I can see no reason not to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Apart from anything else, it is part of the highly respected City & Guilds organisation and awards nationally recognised qualifications. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references consist of a deadlink, a registry entry, and the subject's own website. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was surprised see this had been nominated as an AfD. The organisation is well known in the UK (or at the very least amongst educators, managers and leaders). They have significant involvement with accrediting centres and courses around management and leadership in the UK. There seem to be lots of findings of surveys run by ILM which have been picked up by the media. Given these factors, I had expected there might a lot more coverage of the organisation itself. There are lots of secondary sources, but I haven't managed to find a good review by an independent journalist, which the article would really benefit from. I also recognise that there are aspects of the text that appear to be written with a promotional tone but that can be fixed. I find that in terms of notability the subject of the article meets WP:ORG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am equally surprised that this has been nominated for deletion. The ILM is an accredited and recognised professional institution in the UK. It also meets WP:ORG. Independent sources can be found. The promotional write up can also be rectified. I see no valid reason to delete this article. Audit Guy (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1 Anti-Nazi Mix

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

I have been unsuccessful in establishing the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observation - This is one of many delete requests submitted in a batch by the submitter. Check April 21st submissions for deletion, very short time span, high number of easily disproved notability submissions ... most likely did not do their due diligence and google per wiki guidelines: Special:Contributions/Lachlan_Foley. Due to this minimal assertions are being used due to "flooding" of the deletion thread. IamM1rv (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The release is on 3+ major sales sites, has music videos & there's an amazon book[44][45] (not ebook) being sold about this subject. I haven't verified it, as it's out of stock...but that is rather notable in of itself. IamM1rv (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eochair an ghrá

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

Sourced only to the network's website. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 21:23, 22 April 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 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked in a few Irish newspapers that are either in Irish or include some info in the Irish language, and found zero. The two links on the page for this in Gaeilge (Irish) are both dead. I don't see a way to save this one, unless someone has access to Irish magazines that could cover the show. LaMona (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Irish Independent covered it precisely once, [46]. It was briefly discussed in a book on the internet in Ireland: [47], an Irish language website covered it [48] and the Galway Advertiser had about a para on it [49]. All in all, that would seem to barely meet WP:GNG but the show sounds just awful. Sometimes I don't see why WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an acceptable argument at AfD. This is one of those times. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachra10003 - I hear you :-) and empathize. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources are referenced. Only the subject's own website. There is no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the entertainment-focussed Irish sources listed above include only passing mentions or a very brief, superficial description of this show and its (not really new) concept. All in all those brief mentions are not significant coverage imo. GermanJoe (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey & Clarke

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

No evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The founders may be reliable (arguable), but, even so, that notability is not inherited by the company. Dweller (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of google docs and unknown websites mention about this firm. --C E (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi CE. If you've found reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the firm, please mention them here. I wouldn't want a notable firm to be deleted from Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources are referenced. One reference is to a historic biography that references the individuals and does not indicate that the firm is or was notable. The other reference is merely to an NPS page that does not discuss the firm. Even if structures are referenced, the architect is not necessarily notable.--Rpclod (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP Magnetic Coupling

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

A commercial product, claiming the notability of the generic device, a magnetic particle clutch.

Even the name here is dubious. Does "IP" stand for the maker's name, IP weatherproofing ("IP ratings" are a standard industry term) or for the claimed "Incapsulated Powder" (sic).

WP can use better articles on mechanical components like this, and really needs work on Magnetic particle clutch. However unsourced COI articles on one maker's narrow product range aren't the way to go forwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in the name refers to the fact that it is Incapsulated, it is written like this and not like Encapsulated to also point out the fact that it has a high IP rating, still learning how Wikipedia works and i am reticent with editing someone's article but i am trying my best to learn. I decided to write an article about a patented method to build magnetic couplings which is referred to by the patent owner as IP magnetic coupling. If it is decided that this page should be deleted i will be merging some of the information presented here to the magnetic coupling general page. Also this has nothing to do with the magnetic particle clutch this is purely magnetic while that one is electromagnetic. SoreaAlex (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one reference is to another wikipedia article and as such is not authoritative. The second reference does not even mention the name of the subject and appears to be a listing of products. The third reference appears to have nothing to do with the subject and instead relates to "Understanding the IP (Ingress Protection) Ratings of iButton Data Loggers and Capsule".--Rpclod (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kadar Brock

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

Non-notable artist. A single brief (and none too complimentary) review in The New York Times (which, in this case, can be considered local coverage). No evidence of actual notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--Rpclod (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Searches here (News), here (Books) and here (a few magazines) found links but nothing that appears significant. Delete for now until notability is established. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Gelios

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about footballer who hasn't made an appearance in a fully-pro league and doesn't appear to satisfy the general notability guideline. This remains valid Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not indicate that WP:NFOOTBALL criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and Love Tour

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

Does not meet concert notability guideline WP:NTOUR as the tour has not received significant independent coverage. Sources note only that the tour is taking place which is not sufficient notability for a separate article. Ca2james (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The tour has some independent coverage, although this could perhaps be a section in the main Enrique Iglesias article. There are concert reviews at NJ.com, AXS.com, KRON4, The Huffington Post, The Oakland Press, The OC Register, Fox News Latino, and The Toronto Sun. There are concert announcements with some detail and context at My San Antonio and ABC Paraguay (Spanish). There's also an interesting industry profile of some of the tour equipment. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:- per significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. Many thanks to Northamerica1000. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Artist To Watch Tour

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

Does not meet notability for concerts described in WP:NTOUR. Sources note only that the tour happened after being postponed; there is not significant independent coverage. Ca2james (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By-the-numbers small-venue tour that literally had only MTV's marketing department care about the title. Nate • (chatter) 00:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references just consist of press releases and minor articles. No notability shown.--Rpclod (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Rpclod. Should have more references (I could find none) and the majority is primary or press releases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Supermodel International. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel International 2012

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

Non-notable year-version of a rather new pageant with doubtful notability. The Banner talk 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrelated website as source --C E (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Supermodel International if this is really the same contest. The latter seems to be WP:Notable, as witness these links. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a dead link.--Rpclod (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel International 2011

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

Non-notable year-version of a rather new pageant with doubtful notability. The Banner talk 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The source website is not about supermodels --C E (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Supermodel International if this is really the same contest. The latter seems to be WP:Notable, as witness these links. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a dead link.--Rpclod (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Supermodel International. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel International 2013

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

Non-notable year-version of a rather new pageant with doubtful notability. The Banner talk 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source website redirects to unrelated topics. --C E (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Supermodel International if this is really the same contest. The latter seems to be WP:Notable, as witness these links. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a dead link.--Rpclod (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disease Dietomics

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

Adds very little to topics such as dietetics, nutrition, food science etc. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 09:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find a single reliable source online.--C E (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This AfD page is a good chunk of the first page of google hits! Neologism used by one research group with apparently zero uptake in the broader community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Beginning searches at Scholar, News, Books and browser found absolutely nothing. If this were actually notable in a broad sense, it would've had a few results in at least Scholar or Books. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Net1

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

I can't find evidence that this is a notable ISP. There are a few mentions of the company in this context, i.e. allegations that a subsidiary company was sued in South Africa based on allegations of corruption from the South African Social Security Agency. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough right now. Only one ordinary reference. C E (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only references are a registry listing and the subject's own website. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Diocese of the Holy Cross. Redirects are cheap Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Fellowship of the Delaware Valley

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

I can't find evidence that this is a notable organization. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable. --C E (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per blatantly failing WP:ORG. With no surprises, created by a WP:SPA account. Cavarrone 09:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Diocese of the Holy Cross. That appears to be a schismatic group of Anglican churches, which has left andother Anglican body over doctrinal matters. It has 22 churches and probably qualifies to be kept as a denomination(albeit a very small one) . The article is about a local association within that denomination. We regularly delete articles on local churches. I do not see why a local association (probably essentially a ministers' fraternal) should be treated differently. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Love Letter (R. Kelly album). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Message

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

Article fails WP:NMUSIC in particular WP:NSONG. It doesn't have the depth of coverage required, it is unlikely to expand beyond stub level, NSONG states a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album Flat Out talk to me 02:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Love Letter (R. Kelly album). Not enough information for a standalone article. Random86 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Love Letter (R. Kelly album). Flat Out talk to me 00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin the head

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

I have very strong doubts about this article meeting WP:BIO requirements - and a Google search is not turning up anything to affirm notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This guy should NOT bve allowed to have a wiki page - else youlll get every youtube wanna be celeb making them. He is a legend in hs own bathroom - not on the internet.82.25.19.10 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. reddogsix (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches only found primary and non-significant links, not notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion at WP:BIO or WP:GNG. In a search I found only social media and primary sources. Note that "Colin the head" is a redirect; the actual title of the article is "Colin The Head" (capitalized). Apparently the page was moved during this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Allowing this page to remain will open the floodgates to every self-promoting individual on the planet and will create a significant increase in workload to WIKI admin.

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, usually preferrable to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Jacqueline

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

Delete as non-notable per NACTOR. Quis separabit? 02:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Unfortunately fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Winx Club#Cast 4Kids 2004-2007 section - Multiple searches found nothing significant and the article could probably be redirected to Winx Club where she is listed and may be one of her best known roles. I've heard of this voice actress and she hasn't had many roles. Not notable. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why this articel now again for deleting? We have now refrence for her bio and early not. And whe have found her email. Maybe we can more found page's about her on a bio.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Deleted as G12 (copy vio). Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Becker-Weidman

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

Unremarkable physician/academic. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Page is effectively a CV. Agtx (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Party (television)

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network's website. That link no longer works. No indication of notability. Looks like it hasn't been updated since about 2009 (this seems to be unnamed year referred to in the line referring to the presenter being "due to launch her new as of yet unnamed TV show, which will consist of one-to-one interviews, later this year.") Greykit (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only reference is a dead link. No indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing significant and there is no target for redirect unfortunately. SwisterTwister talk 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highly Recommended

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

Once-off show sourced only to the network's website. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 21:17, 22 April 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 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately delete as there are no significant third-party sources to support the article and there is no target for redirect. Multiple searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marry Me (Irish TV series)

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

Once-off show from seven years ago ("the second season is not yet underway" for all this time). Sourced only to the network's website, some broken links which appear to refer to other shows, a television sales brochure and a call from the network for audience participation. No indication of notability. Most of what turns up on Google seems to be linked to the network and to Wikipedia. Greykit (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing significant aside from Books finding one result in passing. Unfortunately there is no target for redirect. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obstetric Medicine (Journal)

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appears to be WP:TOOSOON with respect to the notability of this journal. It can always be recreated if it gets an impact factor or more selective indexing. Everymorning talk 01:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Darke

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name that Jesuit Jesuit sources use Darke, although many other sources use Drake. I think we put both inames in article, but follow the Jesuits and mainly use Darke, unless better evidence appears.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Murder of Bernard Drake or Murder of Bernard Darke (whichever reflects the proper spelling of his name; note Bernard Drake already exists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guyana has Bernard Drake (priest) on their requested articles list) would likely pass the various subsections of WP:EVENT. There are a few GNews hits of the murder (e.g. [50], [51], [52]), and various GBook hits well after also put the murder in context of various political events indicate lasting notability by some standard (e.g. [53], [54], [55]). This doesn't appear to be simply a "routine" murder in Guyana (e.g. [56], [57]). - Location (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The murder appears to be mentioned in another poorly sourced article, Andrew Morrison. - Location (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I expect that the Catholics will in due course claim him as a saint, as having been martyred. I express no opinion on his sanctity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Murder of Bernard Darke. I have improved the sourcing of this deadly political stabbing of a working journalist. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my earlier prod which was removed by a since-banned editor. Darke was not "martyred"; he was a bystander accidentally killed by assassins looking for someone else. There are very occasional precedents for biographies of people known only for their deaths (Rachel Corrie, Emmett Till, Alice Ayres, H. Jones), but those are invariably in circumstances where the death prompted a significant public reaction to the extent the the death itself becomes the "well-documented historic event" required by Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators. This pseudo-article manages to get even the most basic facts such as his nationality wrong (he was a Brit who happened to be working in Guyana, not Guyanese), and does not indicate in any way how or why his murder was any more notable than anyone else's. Without "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" this is a clear violation of WP:VICTIM. – iridescent 08:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with E.M.Gregory. Keep and move to Murder of Bernard Darke. 30 years on, and the murder is still being discussed. Article is sourced, and the event is significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran car prices

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

Contested WP:PROD - Unencyclopedic. The article is basically a how-to guide for calculating car prices and then a directory of car companies in Iran. Wikipedia is not a directory. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing worth keeping here. Bosstopher (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Hate to copy others but Bosstophers spot on - There's nothing worth keeping here at all. –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing significant and no way to improve this. SwisterTwister talk 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's some data on total sales in Automotive industry in Iran, but there's nothing specifically about prices, so I'm not convinced it's worth a redirect. Wily D 14:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Cools

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article may meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for listing here. This piece is in-depth coverage, but is it a reliable source? --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: - yes I would say FourFourTwo is a RS; but I don't think one piece is sufficient (similar case-in-point this chap. Giant Snowman 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with significant international coverage such as [58], [59], [60]. Nfitz (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given how heavily the latter two draw on the text of the first of these sources, they can't really be considered independent of one another, and as stated above a single source is insufficient for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a bit of spin. It's not the same article reprinted. Each article is from a different country. They do both reference the first article, but they all seem independent. There are other references before the 442 article. [61], [62]. There's one very good source for WP:GNG (the 442 article), and several borderline ones. Close enough ... Nfitz (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for what it's worth, Cools' team Oud-Heverlee Leuven are currently playing playoffs for promotion to the Belgian Pro League, in case they won't make it, there are sources such as [63] mentioning that the youngster will move to a bigger team. In any case it thus seems he'll play for a team in a fully professional league next season, very likely in Belgium. But that's guessing for now. Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 10:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MADE 2015 World Tour

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

Delete or redirect Only a few concerts have been held so far on this tour and the impact of them is not mentioned at all. Most of the article is about the promotions for the concert itself the rest being a set list and concert dates. This tour may become relevant in the future but for now it is not and there is no way to speculate on its impact at this point. At this point the only thing this page is doing is promoting the concerts, it is not saying why they are important because for the most part they haven't been held yet. Also it lacks sources for most of that information as well. Peachywink (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with it being deleted. The tour has only just started but as seen by their last world tour, Big Bang Alive Galaxy Tour 2012, the tour is likely to attract attention from world press and other relevant information will surely be added as more shows are completed. It seems useless to delete the page now and re-add it later. In comparison, Taylor Swift's 1989 World Tour has not even commenced yet and it contains only a tour schedule, and other basic background information, yet it is not seen as being needed to be deleted. --EnderAtreides117 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment down to where it normally would go, anyways all because another page has something or exist doesn't mean it should. There are not enough editors to patrol the whole of Wikipedia at this time. If the article is not classified as good on the quality scale then its not usable as an example for what to do. Personally I don't think she needs that page either yet, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not predict the future. However I concede the point that it's likely to become relevant in the future so will now lean more towards this page getting blanked for now and redirected.Peachywink (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I agree with EnderAtreides117 comments. The tour has just started. There will be more content once it gets rolling.Mikepellerin^talk 03:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NTOUR and the old crystal ball. Mikepellerin's comment seems to be based on the mistaken idea that a tour is notable because it happened, and because this party happened it should be wholly notable. That's not the case. Tours are notable if they generate reliable, in-depth coverage in secondary sources--coverage meaning coverage of the tour. That's not happening here. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is speculative and there isn't any in-depth coverage of the tour. It may become more notable later on, so I suggest the page be userfied. Random86 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way too soon for this article to exist. Also, seconding the third, fourth and fifth sentence from Drmies, and Random86. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. Vagodino, unless you can pull up something that would show that he exists I have to assume that this is a hoax given the arguments below and the Google search I performed, which did not bring up any evidence of this person's existence as an athlete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Godino

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

Fails WP:BASIC, no coverage in reliable sources. Searches only come up with social network profiles. Esquivalience ^t 00:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete via G3 as a blatant WP:HOAX. The person allegedly played for the "Binghamton double A Mets" in the Eastern League, according to "source #6" in 1981, but the Binghamton Mets didn't exist until 1992. The baseball-reference player page, says "Found 0 hits for your search." – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Also note that the page creator is Vagodino (talk · contribs). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Binghamton Mets were founded in 1962 and have been based in Binghamton since. When Vincent played for the organization, they were a "double a" affiliate. They are and have been a "double A" affiliate of the NY Mets since 1987. Although they weren't quite part of the NY Mets (Eastern Division)in 1981, I'd like to think of the team as the NY Mets all the way through.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagodino (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 May 2015‎

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.

^ Binghamton Mets as on Wikipedia

[1] ttp://www.elpasohistory.com/hall-of-honor/2-uncategorised/146-hoh-henry-c-trost

[2] Binghamton Mets as on Wikipedia

[1]

[1]