Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 January 17 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silvermania Curva[edit]

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

Non notable section of a stadium. Perhaps it could be merged into Perak Stadium, but I don't even know if that would be helpful. Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick tcs 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There does not seem to be enough information to merge into either Perak Stadium or Perak FA, and this does not meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick tcs 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks to be the informal nickname for a certain area of a stadium used by certain fans; does not merit either its own article or merging/redirecting. Simply needs deleting. GiantSnowman 11:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nopn-notable, informal nickname for a part of one stadium. Nothing notable in this and nothing of note to merge. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The article is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia and there is negligible info to really merge it. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage from reliable sources for notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Marée Muren[edit]

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

A number of problems with this article, starting with the fact that the actress (in my opinion) qualifies for a CSD A7. The speedy was declined because she appeared in three movies, but the movies are minor Norwegian films, two of which doesn't have an article, and the third, Kompani Orheim, doesn't even mention the actress in the article. Also, the only sources given in the article are IMDb, and a quick google search doesn't bring up any reputable sources either. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After scouring Kvasir, the Norwegian search engine, the only place I find her mentioned is a credit as "the girl" in this listing of Videogutten, which was a short. The director says concerning Kyss meg for faen i helvete (which has a stub on Norwegian Wikipedia that doesn't even say it's a children's film) that he likes to use relatively inexperienced actors, although for that one he used some who had also worked for him on Videogutten. I found reviews as well as listings for Kyss meg for faen i helvete and Kompani Orheim - zero mention of her. So she must have had small parts; it's too soon. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage from reliable sources for notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as author requested. — MusikAnimal talk 16:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple[edit]

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

Other than self-published sources, no evidence of notability. Drm310 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (message) @ 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (announce) @ 18:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul (Girls' Generation and Super Junior song)[edit]

Seoul (Girls' Generation and Super Junior song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song was only used to promote tourism for South Korea. There is really nothing to suggest anything notable for it to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. No chart information either. It fails both WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. TerryAlex (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - not really sure how to approach this one. It was written and then used for an official government tourism campaign, guaranteeing airtime in multiple international contexts. It was also performed at the Asia Song Festival resulting in widespread regional airtime. It was a collaboration between two very notable pop groups. But the name makes it almost impossible to find anything by way of actual significant coverage from 6 years ago. We have an article for the Australian tourism campaign catch-phrase So where the bloody hell are you? and that was just a then-relatively-unknown model standing on a beach. This was an actual song by two very well-known K-Pop groups. I'm inclined to think that's the sort of thing we should chronicle, but that's just me. St★lwart111 02:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111 You can't really compare it to K-pop. From WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Even that Australian campaign's article has some real information, but sad to say, 99% of K-pop songs/albums, even the most famous ones, don't have that kind of media coverage, except for "Gangnam Style".--TerryAlex (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but it helps that the coverage of the Australian campaign is almost entirely in English and was so stupid, it was parodied extensively. I don't imagine this song was subsequently parodied but I imagine most of the coverage (certainly most of the analysis of its effectiveness as a campaign) would be in Korean. I think its use in a major international tourism campaign is what might make it notable. But then, I haven't !voted and I'm not really convinced either way. St★lwart111 06:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in this kind of thing, songs like this by popular kpop groups are released frequently by different sectors of the Korean government. Every big city has one, even different parts of Seoul have their own. Hit up enough government websites and you'll have a whole collection of taxpayer-funded kpop songs. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then my concerns about the possibility of deleting some notable government-funded tourism campaign song are unfounded. St★lwart111 05:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. New tourism-encouraging songs by kpop groups are released multiple times a year by different sectors of the Korean government and various cities in Korea. This one was as temporarily-used as those others are; it just has an article because a fan of one of these groups happened to make one. Per WP:NSONG, song notability is not inherited, that is, a song by a notable artist (or even two) must attain notability on its own, not by virtue of who performs it. This song was just one blip in the never-ending Korea self-promotion campaign. I would be shocked to discover one person outside SJ/GG fandom who remembers it. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Retail Congress[edit]

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

Nonnotable enterprize, tagged since May 2014. Single-source (lelfref) references. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (report) @ 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DataVault[edit]

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

non notable WP:PRODUCT sourced only by primary source manual for product. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a precursor to RAID-2 and one of maybe only two implementations it is certainly notable. It is also notable for its performance. The article fixes a redlink in the Thinking Machine's article. FWIW searching "datavault" in Wikipedia gives 29 other hits several of which probably should be linked. The fact that there is only one source in the article is a meaningless criterion; there are multiple sources on the web, the one cite was sufficient for this article. At most it might be combined with the Thinking Machine article, but then that should be done with the Connection Machine article also. I made it a separate article to be consistent with the existing articles. Tom94022 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW it did link the DataVault entry on the RAID page, so now there are two links that will break if the article is deleted Tom94022 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that with the preponderance of boxes for RAID cabinets, the DataVault's design alone makes it notable.Tom94022 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Clear lack of due diligence by the nominator. 159 google book hits, many of which describe the product in detail. A notable part of computing history. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per GNG. This was a historically significant product, the first commercially available RAID-2 disk system. Looking at the links in WP, most seem to be to later or different topics. But there are 3 important links, from Thinking Machines, Connection Machine, and RAID. There are a lot of hits on Google Scholar from around 1990, when it was the most advanced system of its kind. I added one cite to a book on parallel computing, and one to the original patent. I think this has a lot of potential (WP:HASPOT) for the early implementation of ECC codes. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Seventeen (disambiguation)[edit]

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

per WP:2DAB- the song (one of the most recognised songs of all time) is the WP:PTOPIC over the film (a little-known comedy film)- gets over three times as many hits . Qxukhgiels (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure how WP:2DAB applies here, as there are clearly three topics being disambiguated: the song (which is indisputably the primary topic and the article at the non-disambiguated title Edge of Seventeen), the film, and the short story by Alexandra Sokoloff (the third entry should probably drop the award mention and use its one-per-line bluelink to target the author, but that's an editorial issue). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as WP:2DAB does apply because the third entry does not have its own page, although Keeping would be acceptable too with the above-mentioned link change. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of the manual of style for disambiguation suggests that entries with valid target links are still considered topics to disambiguate even if the named subject itself is not a stand-alone article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the primary topic was already established and the dab page just needed formatting properly to reflect that. The other two ambiguous topics could technically be handled via a hatnote but the disambiguation page does no harm. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth:- yes, but the short story is not notable at all. It may do no harm, but it is not necessary.Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:2DAB applies to dabs which 'list only two meanings'; this dab lists three meanings. The third entry meets MOS:DABMENTION, so it is irrelevant whether it has its own article. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the short story is specifically notable, as winner of an award. It's a useful dab page. Could be done by a hatnote but that would be rather cumbersome, so on balance this useful dab page is better. PamD 12:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 18:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW j⚛e deckertalk 22:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted Individual[edit]

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

Lack of notability. There doesn't seem to be many reliable sources mentioning this term. AfD of same article title in february 2013. This article seems to be very similar and should maybe be speedied per WP:G4 if it's a near copy of the deleted article. Sjö (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and salt. I can't judge whether this is a qualifying G4, but I can see that the arguments from the 2013 AFD still clearly apply to this content. And I can see that the arguments from the other, older AFDs on related topics (linked from the first AFD) also still apply. In short, similar conspiracy-theory-styled material has appeared at gang stalking, cause stalking, and a host of other article titles, dating back to perhaps 2005 in one form or another, and has never survived a deletion review. Several such titles saw G4-deleted recreations post-AFD, and at least two of the titles converted to redirects have had to be protected in that form. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This might be merged with the similar topic of electronic harassment, though that is just a subset of this topic. There are have been a few mainstream domestic terrorist incidents connected with this conspiracy theory, though media sources are split as to whether the attacks are real, a sign of mental illness, or a connection back to disinformation agents who use the theory as a cover story for the true motives for such attacks. Aaron Alexis was determined by the FBI to suffer from TI delusions, and so has been well covered by the mainstream press, even though the topic has also been promoted by conspiracy theory oriented press. Even if this is just unreliable conspiracy theories, it appears often enough to be treated at least in the spirit of other conspiracy theories such as Sandy Hook and the 911 attacks. If you search for the term on the internet, it occurs often enough that people will want to go Wikipedia to find a definition and make their own judgement of which side they want to believe. But to say the concept simply does not exist does not help anybody Bachcell (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepdelete This article convinced me that the is a new dimension of paranoia, beyond "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went through several of the links and they certainly all relate to topics, but not to this topic...because it seems this article is the only one about this topic. Wikipedia is not the place to create a synthesis of ideas based on various information and present it as an existing thing. Delete per WP:OR and lack of direct citation/verifiability. -Markeer 03:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 18:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 18:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The books about the topic may be sufficent to establish notability. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Can you give an example of one of these books? The problem with the article is that all of the books linked as citations are NOT about this topic, they're about other topics. -Markeer 00:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; synthesis of notions that have no place on wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Promotion of fringe conspiracy bollocks based on synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage of this topic in reliable sources, passing mention of it only. No serious discussion or substantial coverage required for notability. Existing content is SYNTH. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - i was going to weigh in on this article before. but i see that everyone else have said what i had in mind.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a WP:FRINGE POV fork -- a WP:SYNTH WP:SOAPBOX version of an existing article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fringe-fork of existing articles on stalking, etc. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the most stupendous examples of synthesis and OR I've ever seen. Wholly inappropriate for the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous comments. Mostly fringe synthesis. Also, English in lede is not good. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- conspiracy theorist drivel. Reyk YO! 19:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a conspiracy theory. (Arguments already stated) -- Orduin ⋠T⋡ 19:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Whether to break an subtopic out into a separate article is largely a subjective question, and opinions seem fairly evenly split here on whether it should be done in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Suárez controversies[edit]

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

A series of 'incidents' do not add up to a notable, standalone topic; there are only really 4 such 'incidents' here and they are covered on the parent article already. Furthermore we have BLP to consider. My suggestion - delete. GiantSnowman 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP violation as a heavily negatively slanted controversy article about a living person. It is also a content fork and contains far more detail than is required. Frankly, I'm dubious about Luis Suárez racial abuse incident being a sensible article to have either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly shouldn't stay if this goes - depending on consensus here I will take that to AFD in due course. GiantSnowman 18:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly doesn't violate BLP: It's written from a neutral point of view (it can't be helped that he has done many negative things, this is all factual, you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise), it's clearly all verifiable by highly reliable sources, and there's no original research whatsoever because every single sentence has been sourced. The fact that each previous incident comes up when he has done something shows it all ties in together; for a start, Otman Bakkal is quoted in a section completely disassociated from the incident involving him, and the previous incidents always came up when talking about the others, that's why each ban was longer than the others.
    Also it's not a content fork, it's a split; I took into consideration the sheer volume of text necessary to fully expand each incident, because otherwise the main Luis Suárez article would be dominated by these four incidents and would become unreadable, and what is there currently is minor in regards to how big it was within his career - a full season worth of games banned for. And I'm not sure why incidents is in speech marks, it's highly disingenuous to suggest these aren't actual incidents. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a significant, well-documented and widely discussed part of his career. Article split is within the guideline WP:Summary style. And the article is not "slanted", contrary to earlier opinion: Suárez is given ample text for his side of story. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can easily be covered in the main Suárez article. No need for a content fork. Number 57 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge into Luis Suárez - Personally I see no need for a separate article when it can all be shoved on parent article. –Davey2010Talk 22:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Put this is precisely the point of WP:SPLIT, they couldn't easily be covered in the main article without detracting from everything else. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Grouping these incidents doesn't seem appropriate unless in the main Luis Suárez article. If the individual incidents are notable enough, they should have their own articles. If not, there's no need to go into too much detail in the main article. – PeeJay 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't just one incident though, it's a trend in the career that he has caused multiple controversies, such is that it would distract from everything else if this was implanted in the main article. Hence, WP:SPLIT. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly not everyone agrees. – PeeJay 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody has provided one specific guideline to the contrary either, at least not one that actually holds up to even minor scrutiny. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good thing it's up to an admin, and not you, to decide that. – PeeJay 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good thing an administrator, and not you, will be able to read that a grand total of zero people have provided sufficient reasons thus far. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge and Partial delete – (edit conflict) The section on his abuse of Patrice Evra already has its own article, and his biting Giorgio Chiellini is already covered in List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies and in Luis Suárez; these sections can well be deleted. The incidents of him biting Otman Bakkal and Branislav Ivanović could well be merged into the Suárez article either as a subsection of #Style of play or as its own section on his controversies. This does not appear to me to be a true WP:SPLIT, as some of the information did not appear to have existed in Luis Suárez or any other article prior to the creation of this article, and WP:PROSPLIT would have required that any duplicated information be removed from the main article with appropriate notes and comments. This appears to me to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The racial abuse incident and the biting of Chiellini might meet WP:N by themselves because of the widespread coverage and wider social conversations and consequences, but that does not make every incident involving Suárez notable enough for a mention outside of his own article. — Jkudlick tcs 01:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that the incidents involving Suárez have garnered widespread coverage and intertwining football consequences, thus are all relevant to each other? Perhaps a Wikipedia article could be created highlighting each incident and how each additional incident managed to gain mass media coverage and commentary, and how each additional incident gave the player increased bans and eventually forced the player to seek professional help because it had happened repeatedly? Good idea Jkudlick. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said two specific incidents might meet WP:N because of the circumstances surrounding them and the subsequent coverage, but the other two do not. Taken as a whole, this article does not need to exist because the two incidents which might meet WP:N are already covered elsewhere, and the other two can easily be mentioned in the Suárez article. I'm not sure where you read that I stated all of his incidents are relevant when I stated that two sections can be deleted and two can be merged elsewhere. I've stated my opinion, you clearly have yours, and we'll leave it for the closing admin to decide. — Jkudlick tcs 02:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - RealDealBillMcNeal, you need to stop badgering the voters here. We get it, we know what your opinion is. You also appear to have a personal dislike for Suarez, given the article and your comments, so it's probably best to take a step back. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the irony. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly. I questioned one Keep voter, because I genuinely cannot see how their claim that the diving things belongs in the article is sensible. You, however, have tried to badger every single delete or merge voter bar me... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chat) @ 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (commune) @ 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable events which have received widespread coverage. This article should be expanded to include his diving controversies. IJA (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukeno94: - Repeated simulated diving and getting away with it most of the time is indeed controversial. IJA (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... in your opinion. Considering that it is hard to prove each and every allegation of simulation, that's not very credible. Regardless of that, however, it is not a controversy in the style of the ones in this article, which are all isolated events. Indeed, although his perceived tendency to dive may be controversial, that does not make it a controversy... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukeno94: - I'm not on about individual simulated diving events, I'm on about Suarez and simulated diving in general. Controversy is a noun and Controversial is an adjective. From the Oxford English Dictionary: Controversy - Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. Just a few examples over a prolonged period: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Then there is the discussions and outrage of his simulated diving on social media. If you require any more examples, let me know. Regards IJA (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest here; the real controversy you pointed out is diving in general. What makes Suarez's diving any more controversial or notable than, for example, Christiano Ronaldo or Thomas Müller? — Jkudlick tcs 02:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is any more notable, I'm just saying that there is a place for it on this article. IJA (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the controversies could be individually notable, but they are already covered elsewhere (as I noted above) and don't need redundant articles. The other two incidents are only notable when taken in the context of the whole and are more suitably addressed in Suárez's article. — Jkudlick tcs 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Asides from the inherent BLP issues which present the individual in an unnecessarily negative light, this article is massive overkill. These are notable events and should be covered in reasonable detail in the playing career section of Suarez's article. However, they in no way define his career, nor are they in anyway the most significant events to have happened to him. This fork gives undue weight to them. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Disagree in many ways. His controversies do define his career. When reliable sources such as the BBC [9], CBS [10] and the Daily Telegraph [11] all produce copy detailing these controversies I conclude they are notable. Even his recent biography is called "Luis Suarez: The Biography of the World's Most Controversial Footballer". I believe there is no better way for an encyclopedia to show this than to pull these controversies together in a well sourced and balanced article and this is it.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Sceptre (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-go area[edit]

No-go area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To be filled out... DonIago (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is over 8 yrs old and still lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS also apply. I believe deletion is long past due. Atsme☯Consult 19:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How does WP:CFORK apply here? Which article is this a content fork of? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy - each of the three sections creates a CFork because it's information that belongs in Northern Ireland, Rhodesian Bush War or Rhodesia, and South Africa or South African Defence Force respectively. If you don't think CFork applies, choose another reason. There are several which you so wisely pointed out on the TP. Atsme☯Consult 19:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a new phenomenon — see Alsatia, for example. The matter is quite notable and topical too. If there's a better title for the concept, let's hear it. Even then, this would just be a matter of merger and that's done by ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - please provide the RS and further description in the lede if you believe the matter is quite notable. The article has been up for 8 years without sufficient context or sourcing to identify the subject in the way it may have been intended originally. The term "no-go zone" is now ubiquitously referred to as a non-Muslim area where local law enforcement does not intervene. Another editor just referred to it in relation to schools. I've provided multiple RS with academic and institutional research (including law enforcement) confirming non-Muslim areas exist as no-go zones. There have even been attempts to wikilink to the article using the context of the non-Muslim zone, therefore, if consensus determines the article should stay, the context will be further defined, and more sections added. First things first. Atsme☯Consult 21:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone come up with better reasons. I see no CFORK, RS can always be argued, but is no reason for deletion unless no RS exists. Can you explain the SYNTH? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment
  1. I can see no difference in meaning or usage between no-go area and no-go zone, so I think we should consider them together. I'm inclined to the view that no-go zone should become a redirect to no-go area, with about half its current content incorporated here and the other half pruned.
  2. The obvious place to start is with the dictionary definition. For example Collins has two definitions for "no-go area" and half a dozen examples of usage. See it here. "no-go zone" doesn't appear.
  3. Having decided what we're talking about, we could go on and give the most notable examples, as the article currently does. There are quite a few inward links, which ought to be satisfied rather then just removed.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - Stephan, AndyTheGrump described it at the TP, stating: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and unless a single source can be found to draw the existing content together, it may have to be deleted as synthesis. Atsme☯Consult 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I said 'unless', and 'may'. Now will you stop misrepresenting the discussion at Talk:No-go area, and confine further discussion to your own rationale, rather than purporting to have started this AfD on my behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "misrepresented" anything. Quotes are not misrepresentations. Please stop making spurious claims. Atsme☯Consult 00:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Established term. It happens even today, and is often mentioned. Quickly searching I could find for instance this, this and this, but I'm sure I've seen it before. I think what's going on is that someone is upset because this essentially military term has been in the news because of alleged no-go areas in France, Sweden or Britain. The fact is that there are local areas nominally under the sovereignity of governments that have no business actually going there. For instance, in Pakistan, there have been no-go areas in the FATA even before al-Qaida became famous; Pakistan law enforcement could not enter them for fear of being militarily attacked. Regarding Wikipedia-keeping, if there is unsourced information which is not in a BLP article, the correct method to rectify the situation is to add sources, not try to (ab)use the deletion process to try to get the whole article deleted. --vuo (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - you just validated the context identity issue. Please read the lede to better understand the issue. Atsme☯Consult 21:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is room for improvement in many aspects but the article as stands does serve valuable information and it does have some sources. --Boy Seeks Girl Tonight (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if anything, the article doesn't extend far enough. There are civilian no-go areas declared when civil unrest mean that fire and ambulance services cannot/well not attend certain areas and there are no-go areas declared in relation to major events or incidents. Its not limited to areas where authorities have "lost control" but applies to areas where authorities are temporarily incapable of maintaining control. There are clear links to martial law and curfews. The asnwer here is expansion, not deletion. St★lwart111 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "No-go" is just a figurative term, the meaning is understood given context but no precise definition (unless it does in some nations legal code). It should be approached like other idiom articles, by giving a general sense of its meanings with examples, some origin (etymology) if it can be found, and how the term has been used in historical events. Related to No man's land, Red line (phrase) and other Category:Metaphors referring to places. -- GreenC 03:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." As I've made clear on the article talk page, we seem to be having problems defining 'no-go area', and it isn't clear to me whether there is actually an underlying definable concept (which would make it a legitimate subject for an article), or whether given the widely-differing contextual meanings attached to it, whether it is just a 'term', or even sometimes a rather tired cliché trotted out by the lazy. If there is an underlying concept, we ought to be able to find some sort of source for it, and build our article around that - otherwise, it may become a dumping-ground for 'anything and everything that someone has at some point or another called a no-go area', which isn't really encyclopaedic. I'm still open to opinions on this though, and hopefully this AfD (which I consider inappropriate while discussions were going on on the talk page) may help find the solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's technically an English idiom, and we have lots of articles on those so it is not an inherit problem, even if it is a tired old cliche (as many idioms are). Nor is a precise definition or concept needed as many idioms are understood in context. It's a question of notability I think. -- GreenC 04:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple reliable sources cover the subject, including recently in relation to Islamist attacks on a left leaning satire publication and a Jewish market. There are also numerous books about the subject in regards to other contexts. Therefore, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, and may I refer to WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - when will users learn that the AfD process is not the proper way to go if you want articles to be improved etc... This also has plenty of reliable sources so I do not see the argument for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - it seems 8 years without citing sources or providing a specific context for the article would qualify a deletion request. There are plenty of arguments for keeping it, but not for any of the reasons that define what it is, so what we end up with is a hodge-podge for editors to write whatever they want. How very encyclopedic. Atsme☯Consult 23:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would help if you did not change the article drastically during this AfD process so that users could evaluate the article during this time. Making drastic edits can be seen as trying to influence the result. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed the article. Not sure what you're referring to. Atsme☯Consult 03:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did delete. Is record: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&oldid=642965845 Anonymous because I can. 173.161.12.108 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Number of reliable references, and the subject is already known to people. This term itself clarifies its rationale. Noteswork (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suspect that this will be the new "buzz phrase" of 2015, even though its been around a few years. Its about to be on everyones lips, very soon.--JOJ Hutton 03:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -- GreenC 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term was certainly not a 'backwater curiosity' in 1970s Belfast or Derry - it was a significant fact of peoples lives. Unlike the made-up bollocks currently being regurgitated by sections of the U.S. right wing. If anything needs 'deconstructing', it is how actual barricades manned by armed men have somehow become less significant than fictitious 'areas' located nowhere anyone actually cares to put a name to, invented to suit the Islamophobic rhetoric of pundits who reside on the other side of the Atlantic. Not that Wikipedia will do the 'deconstructing' of course - instead it will cobble together yet another contradictory pseudo-encyclopaedic 'article' consisting of anything and everything the POV-warriors can crowbar into it. Prior to this latest shit-storm, this was a crap article that nobody cared about. As a result of the shit-storm, it will instead become a crap article that everyone cares about. A combination of vague undefined subject matter and the self-evident glee with which the POV-warriors are piling in makes that a certainty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by 'deconstruct' was to put the 'Islamophobic rhetoric of pundits who reside on the other side of the Atlantic' into context as it now appears ("Anti-Muslim"). The article has almost no sources for 1970s Belfast or Derry, or its claim the term was coined in Rhodesia, that would be good to find more sources. It looks like someone piled on too many sources for the Fox News brouhaha as part of this AfD, most of those should be moved to the talk page. I'm going to reorder the sections from oldest to newest so the Fox stuff is at the bottom and Rhodesia (claimed origin) at the top. -- GreenC 14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only is this an established term, but the deletion nomination justification fails completely. The article identifies the context. This is not a fork of another article. There is no violation of WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources are cited in the article. —Lowellian (reply) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 3 Keep, 0 Delete (non-admin closure)  - The Herald (here I am) 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jatiya Krishak Samity[edit]

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

Only claim to fame seems to be a connection to a (minor) political party. Google search does not unearth any independent sources. No content that is worth while merging elsewhere. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources: 1,2 and other references. There will possibly be others in Bangla.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Klöpper[edit]

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

Non-notable player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be re-created when/if he ever meets either of them or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY and nothing is provided to show meeting WP:GNG without meeting WP:NHOCKEY.RonSigPi (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 57 games in DEL makes him unnotable under the 3rd point of WP:NHOCKEY, which is the only of the listed criteria for which he might quality. Acebulf (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Gilberto[edit]

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

This article has been around for eight years but no-one has added much evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Bagwell[edit]

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

Minor political figure; only claim to fame is being a candidate for governor (amassing 4% of vote). No non-trivial coverage, just passing mentions, and as such doesn't come close to WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is about the first Republican to run in the general election for governor of Louisiana in 24 years. Bagwell also played a role in the effort to revive Louisiana's moribund Republican party apparatus and to get the pro-Eisenhower Louisiana delegates seated at the 1952 Republican convention, thereby securing the nomination for Eisenhower. (See, e.g., this 1952 AP article and this law review article.) As such, he played a meaningful role in Louisiana politics, and its long term transformation from yellow dog Democrat to Republican bastion. I agree that there's some extraneous detail in the current version of this article, but I don't think our coverage is improved by deleting the whole article. If we don't want a separate article, the better solution would be to merge and redirect to Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1952, not to delete it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no problem with merge/redirect, though he's already mentioned in the election article you mention above. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while the passing mentions are not "significant coverage", we are talking about early-1950s Louisiana. Many paper records are still being digitised (see those few Google Books records that do exist) and online coverage is predictably scarce. That said, I'd argue that his contribution to Southern politics (his "field") is significant enough for him to pass WP:ANYBIO#2. We're not talking about someone people are trying to "promo" for election now (60+ years later). I think there's value in keeping this article as part of the enduring political record of the region in that era. But I agree that at present, there's not a lot of significant coverage there, such that a strong case is difficult to make. I certainly don't fault the nominator for bringing it here. St★lwart111 03:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't object to Wikipedia covering Bagwell's election bid, but that's already handled in the gubernational election article, and the first two paragraphs of the "political life" section his Bagwell's article could be easily merged to the gubernational article without bloating it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strongly disagree with any of that. If that's the way consensus goes, I'd not object. St★lwart111 04:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with that solution is that in 1964 he was a visible and vocal opponent of Goldwater and an advocate of moderation in the Louisiana GOP. See [12][13] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 4 percent is all he could obtain in 1952, where there was virtually no Republican Party in Louisiana. The article is important to the history of the Republican Party of Louisiana, which a half-century later became the state's majority party statewide and in the legislature. I missed the part about the 1952 Convention but Arxiloxos found and added it. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (yak) @ 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bagwell has not gotten the most intensive of coverage, but there is enough source material to write an article about him. While this is very borderline, I believe a keep is the best outcome due to Bagwell's historical significance and the fact that some sources do exist. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in home video[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2014 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; if a user wants to know when a movie came out to DVD and blu-ray and how much money it made, they can look at the films article. This list is just unnecessary. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Most years since 1979 have a 'year in home video' article, all compiled by the List of years in home video article. Current article is well-sourced enough, and video and theater releases aren't the same thing, especially considering rare cases where theatrical films wait years for home release. Nate • (chatter) 16:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is well sourced, definitely a notable topic, and it has the potential to be more than just what came out in home video that year. There can be a history section similar to List of years in home video, explaining different updates to Blu-ray, DVD's, 3D technology, etc. Tavix |  Talk  01:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not for suggesting new ideas. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:OccultZone, could you please explain? The nominator is not suggesting new ideas and your comment does nothing to explain why you think the article should be kept. Tavix |  Talk  23:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These issues are resolved through this link[14], so far the nominator has not even attempted. Nominator is only suggesting new ideas about composing articles and those ideas are contrary to the format of every other years related articles. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I think this kind of article is an appropriate way to group home media releases. Home Media Magazine provides weekly details, and I know that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter at the very least report such details. This kind of list could include DVD/Blu-ray sales figures as well as comparative ranks. EDIT: However, the article title should be changed to reflect that these are U.S. releases. I am not familiar enough with such releases in other territories to know if there is appropriate coverage about them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(An)Other Irish Cinema[edit]

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

per WP:NFILM, doesn't have reliable significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Genz[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG - sourced to Facebook and a variety of other non-RS. BlueSalix (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of specific crimes in Newcastle[edit]

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

This is a pretty random topic, and is a poorly sourced mess. Newcastle (at least the Newcastle being referred to here) is in no way large enough to have a "list of specific crimes" article that wouldn't be seriously stretching notability and/or BLP. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment less a list and more a handful of short articles smooshed together. I'm wondering if either splitting or renaming might help. Artw (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was created as a merger of two articles on questionably notable crimes, back in 2009. As a result, this is fundamentally a WP:COATRACK and should probably go on that ground, if nothing else. I'm dubious whether a split is beneficial, as I'm not sure the individual events are notable. Also, fundamentally, I don't think this is how the project has tended to handle crime history by location. The only lists I can find that are structured in this way are similar (if mostly longer) efforts for Melbourne, Sydney, and Western Australia. All of them have issues with list inclusion criteria, end-runs around notability standards for criminal events, and (at least) the possibility of BLP violations. Should this article be deleted, the rest may warrant a trip to AFD as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think "WP is not news" says we should not cover everything that happens, including ordinary crimes. Putting them together as a list does not change this policy. BayShrimp (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most of the above; not sure if BLP applies here. Two run-of-the-mill murders that wouldn't merit their own articles in a ridiculous list by location. The other three "List of specific crimes in xxx" should definitely be nominated as well. (And what exactly is so "specific" about these crimes?) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per the comments here here, I have nominated the other three existent articles along these lines for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of specific crimes in Melbourne, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of specific crimes in Western Australia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of specific crimes in Sydney. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 02:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 18:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 18:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unspecified criteria for inclusion ("specific"), vague definition and scope, WP:COATRACK for author to indulge personal interests. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strange as I expected the article to list crimes that are only specific to the location like byelaws and the like, "thou cant feed cattle on foo street", so clearly a confused topic and being used as a collector of non-notable events. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either List of major crimes in Newcastle or Timeline of major crime in Newcastle. Any coatracking should be addressed by removing inappropriate material, or filling gaps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC).
  • Merge what? Two routine murders that don't have articles? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, after looking at Timeline of major crimes in Australia, I don't have much good to say about the state of that list, either. It's largely unreferenced, extremely over-inclusive, and has more than few entries that make me nervous from a BLP standpoint. I'd be far more inclined to take it to AFD than to add more there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T P Sundara Rajan[edit]

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

T P Sundara Rajan was known only for WP:ONEEVENT, getting a court to open the secret vaults of Padmanabhaswamy Temple, which is covered in Padmanabhaswamy Temple#Temple_assets. There is no "Significant coverage" about him other than reports related to the Padmanabhaswamy Temple and his death soon after. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see there multiple instances of WP:COPYVIO, -report. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep the main article; merge the others; I rely on Cunard or Arxiloxos or I, JethroBT or one of the others supporting the merge to do so. As the other will become redirects, no deletions are necessary. . DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Rich[edit]

Sharon Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Jeanette MacDonald Autobiography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeanette MacDonald: The Irving Stone Letters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nelson Eddy: The Opera Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mac/Eddy Today (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:Walled garden of articles about Sharon Rich and her works on Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. For only one of Rich's works, Sweethearts (book), have I been able to find any third-party coverage at all. All the others, created and/or heavily edited by User:Maceddy, only cite primary sources, with a promotional undertone, with no improvement for years. No indication of notability for Rich herself or any of her works beyond Sweethearts. Huon (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I was able to dig a little bit on Rich and Sweethearts through the LA Times:
Two of these already appear on the Sweethearts (book) article. The first one is very substantive, but is mostly about the book and its development. That said, sources are generally sparse. Her name does not appear on the Knights Hospitallers website and I cannot confirm her Order of Malta award either. I don't see enough here for a biography, nor is there sufficient coverage of the other works. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Turner, Patricia C. (1993-10-18). "Hearing Their Love Call". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.

      The article notes:

      Now, almost 60 years later, Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy are alive and vibrant, at least in the hearts of those who pay $40 a year to belong to the Mac/Eddy Club, which is based at 101 Cedar Lane, Teaneck. There are 2,800 of these people, according to Sharon Rich, the Teaneck resident whose home serves as headquarters even as she serves as president.

      Rich co-founded the organization in 1977 with Diane Goodrich of New York City.

      ...

      Rich, for instance, is 39 years old; the vice president of Mac/Eddy is 34 - "youngsters," she called them.

      Rich's introduction to the subject is unusual.

      Growing up in a suburb of Los Angeles, she and others from her high school honor society did volunteer work at the Motion Picture Home.

      She was assigned to assist Jeanette MacDonald's older sister, Blossom Rock, in a play the home was putting on. Rock had suffered a stroke.

      "We became friends and hit it off," Rich said of Rock, a character actor from the 1930s under her stage name Marie Blake, and the grandmother to the Addams Family in the 1960s under her own name.

      ...

      Years later, Rich would complete a biography of the two movie idols, and the affair they had "on and off for 30 years."

    2. Yampert, Rick de (2004-05-21). "Author claims to reveal 'Hollywood's biggest cover-up'". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.

      The article notes:

      Rich was a fledgling 16-year-old writer in her native Woodland Hills, in the Los Angeles area, when she met MacDonald's sister Blossom Rock, who had portrayed Grandmama in the TV show "The Addams Family." Rich had never heard of Jeanette MacDonald or Nelson Eddy.

      "When I learned from Blossom there had been a romance between Jeanette and Nelson, it meant nothing to me," Rich says. That is, until she "started reading in the film history books that they hated each other off-screen. I asked Blossom, 'Why are you telling me one thing and the books say

      something else?' When she started telling me the story, I realized this is one of Hollywood's biggest cover-ups, and one of its most tragic cover-ups."

      When Rich decided to plunge ahead and write a book about the affair, she met resistance. Eddy's widow, Ann, and MacDonald's widower, Gene Raymond, were still alive but wouldn't discuss the adulterous romance between their famous spouses. In fact, Rich says, Ann Eddy and Raymond "went overboard trying to keep the story suppressed." Was pursuing the book "harsh on them?" Rich asks herself. "I imagine so." But, she adds, she knew "the story was true" and "they were public figures."

      ...

      "Sweethearts," which was published in 1994 and updated for a new edition in 2001, includes 56 pages of documentation detailing Rich's sources, which included love letters, diaries, FBI records, personal interviews and unpublished memoirs.

      In the new edition's preface, Rich writes: "There are many people who were friends and still vehemently deny any relationship - because Jeanette and/or Nelson themselves never spoke of it to them or denied it themselves."

    3. Bawden, Jim (1996-05-17). "Screen lovebirds took roles to heart". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.

      The article notes:

      Rich is a New York writer who was editing an opera magazine when she get hooked on the "MacEddy" movies. "I became friends with Jeanette's sister, Blossom Rock, who told me about their clandestine love affair. Both of them had married other people and because it was the 1930s any scandal would have wrecked their careers. Jeanette's image was very much that of a lady. They went on loving each other to the day Jeanette died."

      Rich was able to obtain letters Nelson had written Jeanette revealing all but says "the reaction of some fans was furious. The British chapter threatened to picket me if I came to their convention. But others are relieved the truth is finally out. Nelson was quite a womanizer and Jeanette finally had had enough and married actor Gene Raymond for stability.

      "That didn't stop her from caring for Nelson. It's just like in their movies when they sing 'Indian Love Call,' isn't it?"

    4. Brozan, Nadine (1995-02-17). "Chronicle". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.

      The article notes:

      SHARON RICH, the author of three books about Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, will be making a pilgrimage to Washington next Friday on behalf of the two crooners, who appeared together in eight films.

      It's not fair, Ms. Rich said, that the movie stars' likenesses have never been on a United States postage stamp. Ms. Rich, who is also head of Eddy-MacDonald fan club, has collected 20,000 signatures on a petition and will take them to the capital "to toss them on the desk of the person in charge of making decisions" at the Postal Service. In addition, she will bring with her a contingent of other fans who will march along with her singing "Indian Love Call," the couple's famous duet.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sharon Rich to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Sharon Rich is truly all that notable in and of herself is debatable, but the topics of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald, which apparently constitute the bulk of her life's work, are most definitely notable so this pushes the discussion slightly toward KEEP imo, since she has gone to incredible lengths in the study of her topics, even going so far as to edit a book of letters between MacDonald and a pre-Eddy lover, one Irving Stone, not the writer but an early 20th century department store owner. Since she has created lots of factual content about famous people, I would say KEEP, since there is an article on Clifford Irving, whose most famous work was a bogus bio of another prominent Hollywood person, Howard Hughes. 2600:1004:B11B:BD40:6119:7316:FF63:1A49 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sharon Rich - After reviewing the above arguments from Cunard, I agree that the biographical article on Rich does fulfill the notability criteria, and that the other articles up for deletion here can be merged or redirected to her bio page. Sweethearts can probably remain as an independent article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duo kie[edit]

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

this article does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines .

if you take a good look to this article on the page and read carefully , you will understand that the article says that the music band presently present the TV show MTV Tunning España. ... this was an article page that was edited since 2012, without any relieble sources for verification .... SORRY now the article has been nominated for deletions , HERE COMES an article news updated publish 6 days ago [1]Samat lib (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOW i have just translated the article source, and this is the words in english ....[2] The Headline page ... MTV programming for tomorrow Wednesday (Replaces earlier) ....... and the story about the music band ...... MTV Tuning Spain. The tuning car reaches another dimension MTV Tuning. Now comes the Spanish version where rappers Duo Kie be our hosts. .......

My point of view i still strongly believed that this band Has never present the TV show MTV Tunning España, and there maybe also possible a conflict of interest on the newspaper article source , and there is no information about the newspaper Editor who wrote this very article Samat lib (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC) -- Completing an AfD nomination on behalf of Samat lib -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://eldia.es/agencias/7877261-Programacion-MTV-manana-miercoles-Sustituye-anterior
  2. ^ http://eldia.es/agencias/7877261-Programacion-MTV-manana-miercoles-Sustituye-anterior
  • (Just a quick note regarding above - It's all a bit confusing but I originally deleted the above as A) It was below, and B) Had headers (So I assumed without properly reading it was a random editor unhappy with it being kept)- So I've readded it back as part of the noms rationale, Cheers, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Looking at the article itself; I'm tempted to agree it doesn't seem notable. The article was created in 2012 and has changed very little since that time. It is poorly written and referenced and the references aren't in English. However, since it's a Spanish band, I checked out the article in the Spanish Wikipedia. They have 2 articles on this band, a regular article and a discography.
The regular article over there has some clean up templates, but as I don't know Spanish I don't know what they mean. Looking at that, I'm tempted to say the band is notable, but this article needs work by someone who is bi-lingual. I went ahead and added the picture of the band to the article. Keep and tag for clean-up. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (comment) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Catala wiki also has an article, which looks to be the best of the three (though again, I can't read the language so I'm just going on what it looks like. But it has the most references and no clean up tags). See here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Samat lib (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator, your nomination already counts as a !vote. You are only allowed to !vote once, but can comment as much as you wish. Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please can someone take a closer look to this very news article, [1] please you can also translate and read it on Google, This very article was publish in 2011. According to the Editor who wrote this very news article wish says that this very band will soon host the MTV Tuning Spain,.. My point of view there is no news article that says and prove it clear that the Music band as already host the MTV Tuning Spain. there is no news article Editor that talks about how the band host the Show and there Significant in the MTV SHOWS, and what was the Audience reaction .Samat lib (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOW you all can agree with me , 

when you read carefully about the Band news article publish again in January 2015 [2]  wish says /  Now comes the Spanish version where rappers Duo Kie be our hosts.   ....... THERE is no news Editor that talks about how the band host the MTV Tuning Spain and there Significant on the MTV tuning Show. if really the band are notable ,   but Sorry all i read here is Band will host   Samat lib (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this Music Band dont seems Notable from my point of view. 

been an Host of MTV tuning Spain  - - -

does that make him a Notable artist . i really do not know if the Spanish MTV tuning is also Notable according to Wikipedia rules Dos hermana (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://sevilla.abc.es/20110520/tv-realities/sevi-tunning-201105201131.html
  2. ^ http://eldia.es/agencias/7877261-Programacion-MTV-manana-miercoles-Sustituye-anterior
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Nayi Umeed[edit]

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

Its lacks notability Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 15:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
Note: The creator of this article removed the AfD template from the article and blanked this AfD. This appears to have gone on for 6 days.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may withdraw your nomination but now that probably doesn't gonna affect the afd. Where are the sources, that you claim the subject has received significant coverage into? Present them here or in the article. "Tens of thousands or trillions of billions of millions people support the organization" is not a valid criteria of inclusion on Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources on Wikipedia need not be online but there are numerous local newspapers of these states that confirms the notability. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NGO is registered [16] NGO of Kurukshetra, Haryana and is famous for helding awareness programmes in different colleges of North India. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, being a "registered NGO", -is not a valid criteria of inclusion. And, No one is asking you for online sources in particular, but just sources that are independent of the ngo and have discussed in detail the subject. Did you read about NGO in detail in some or many newspapers? List them here or in the article all the sources with enough detail about them that would enable one to go public library and get a copy of the respective offline source. If not, you can't just say that numerous sources exists. You need to prove your claim. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aaj Samaj" Newspaper, date of publication 8 th Nov. 2014 contains details of organisation. Another source is "Yash babu" newspaper on the same day that contains details about the organisation. It contains details of achievements and programmes held in colleges and a recent eye donation programme which was attended by numerous students of the engineering colleges of Kurukshetra. Thats why I was claiming that it is famous in North India. Thanks Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 05:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the respective offline sources using {{cite news}} template in the article. I'll try getting a copy of them in archives or library. However, attention solely from local media or limited media of interest is not an indication of notability. And these are still only two not "multiple" and one is unaware of coverage in there whether it was passing mention or substantial. North India comprises a fairly larger area, at least 20 times larger than Haryana in terms of area and 30 times in terms of population. Being published into Haryanvi local newspapers, doesn't make a thing famous all over North India. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep This organisation is very Notable in northern india . It is working to aware people socially from past couple of year but it got registered on 22nd aug 2014.

In april we organised a safety drive campaign in Kurukshetra, Delhi and Yamuna Nagar where number of people pledge to drive vehicle safely. During time of election in Haryana we started a "cast your Vote campaign" in different colleges and villages of Haryana in which we made the people understand why voting is necessary. On 7th Nov we organised a Eye donation Pledge camp in SKIET college Kurukshetra This organisation is working for the sake of humanity from 2013. So the article NGO Nayi Umeed should not be Removed from Wikipedia. Abh423 (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is famous organisation in Haryana and National Capital Region.So the article should not be deleted. Muazim Balwan (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like Hindi newspapers such this one discuss the NGO Nayi Umeed. Are there more Hindi newspapers that discuss this organisation? I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -People in-here are talking about subject being a famous organization, but have failed to provide "multiple" independent, reliable sources having significant coverage of the subject. One may not just claim notability, they need to prove it. And, nominator, who later !voted keep appears to be canvassing this afd by asking their batchmate(s) to !vote keep in here. Again, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, subject still doesn't appear to be notable for inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How do you know that Nominator has told his batchmate to Vote "Keep", it is a free will of every user to vote what he thinks is right. If you will tell every student of Kurukshetra University about the discussion, the maximum % about them will vote 'keep' because they know about this organisation, and there is no harm getting other users involved in the discussion but it should not be intended to get result in one's favor. Talking about sources there are at least two sources that I published here in the form of newspapers of Haryana, I could't find more this time because I am not in the state right now. In my opinion the article should be included in Wikipedia. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 15:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Mizdow and The Miz[edit]

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

Each subject of this article, Damien Mizdow and The Miz, are independently notable and have existing articles. There is no logical purpose for an additional article with them combined. Additionally the article creator appears to have an inherent WP:COI. Drm310 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm notorious for arguing that recently created tag team articles should be deleted but his is a rare instance where I can see the purpose of this article existing as their gimmick is unique (unlike two randomly paired up guys like R-Truth and Kofi Kingston) and they have held the WWE Tag Team Championship (unlike 3MB and The Rhodes Scholars). I think that they barely meet WP:ENT. The article, as it currently exists, is an absolute catastrophe, and is in need of serious clean-up as it seems the article creator just pasted various bits from each main bio. An article focusing on just the tag team itself might work though.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to note that the main contributor in question is likely a WP:REALNAME vio and not a WP:COI issue.LM2000 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LM2000 I can clean up this article and improve it. So hold on! Ikhtiar H (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LM2000, well, I had fixed it! 09:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better anyway. Should your comments be interpreted to mean that you're voting keep in this AfD though? Also, you cannot move a page while it's being considered for deletion. If its WP:COMMONNAME is different than the current title then we can work on that later on if this survives AfD.LM2000 (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Former tag team champions and notable team. Meets WP:N per various WP:RS within wrestling and even beyond. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow scholarship[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of dubious validity. The source cited in the article appears to be the only instance where the term has been used; I could find no other examples in a search. It has certainly not passed into the language or become a common expression. PROD was removed by the author without comment. MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After sifting through all the sources that are talking about yellow colored scholarship papers, I was only to find a few sources that actually seem to be referring to this term and the mention is in a single sentence reference. Definitely not enough for anything approaching notability. SilverserenC 00:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's sole source is a self-published webpage by Matthew Giobbi that not only blatantly declares the term to be a neologism ("I propose the term yellow scholarship..."), but links to the article here on Wikipedia as its footnoted source. I was able to find a 1977 use of the term in a slightly different context in the Canadian film magazine Take One, but there's certainly nothing like sufficient use of the phrase to warrant either an article or a merger to yellow journalism. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackademic medicine. Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not terms, and the concept behind this term is discussed elsewhere. This idea could be part of a main article, but it should be deleted from being its own article until and unless other sources make this concept stand alone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F3tto[edit]

F3tto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a non-notable artist (he says himself that he has achieved little). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Is it just me or are many of the references cited within the article the same? It seems to be a very lengthy article with not much to back it up. I would recommend that it drastically be reduced so the references don't seem so stretched, otherwise as it stands I have to agree that it seems to lacking in notability and does have an autobiographical feel to it. Unless someone cares to cut a lot of the filler of this down, I would have to say Delete. Just my neutral standpoint on the matter. WeAreAllStars (talk) 9:22, 16 January 2015 (EST)

  • Delete Insufficient coverage from reliable sources for notability. Refs are either promotional or from unreliable sources.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaijuland Battles[edit]

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

I tagged this as a speedy on promotional grounds, but that was declined. I cannot see, however, any claim for notability here, let alone verification of such a claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is actually a recreation after an initial deletion on promotional grounds - I Prod'd that on the same grounds and was declined. This article is an unreferenced promotion (excluding references to company website) of a yet to be released game from a non-notable company. It is not clear but that might be the companies first product.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason and deletion/recreation history. This is in fact the second yet to be released game from the company.:

The Fall of Nemesis: Clash of the Kaijujin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles. Not seeing any reviews or other independent, significant coverage. Neutralitytalk 05:23, 18 January 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) 16:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Island of Doctor Moron[edit]

WITHDRAWN BY NOM--Gaff (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

NN play, released to small local market at a small theater in Sydney (http://www.au.timeout.com/sydney/theatre/venues/7111/new-olympia-theatre). Does not meet WP:GNG. I found a couple refs, but they are small local media reviews (and not exactly positive). Gaff (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant COI: article creator & WP:SPA User:Chris Dockrill also created the play. Gaff (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment see article talk page. Article creator left a long message on my talk page, which I have moved there. Gaff (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Mosser[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT, only a few one-shot bit roles. No RS. Pax 04:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is one of numerous this user had made. I see no proper deletion argument being put forth. The nominator has failed to do due diligence before this nomination. Chillum 04:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - There's lots of books and sources so BEFORE doesn't seem to have been followed ... (Unfortunately my laptops going extremely slow as I've busy saving a project so It's bloody impossible to add the sources at the moment, Sorry!). –Davey2010Talk 22:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Source availability demonstrated. No appropriate deletion rationale.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro (vocaloid)[edit]

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

This is a speedy renomination. My previous rationale was: I don't know about this one. No sources. Google results show questionable sources. But the song is sung by a notable singer. I gave name I gave a link '[[ ]]', and sure enough, it actually went to a page. I think it may need to be turned into a redirect. Thoughts?

Hisashiyarouin was the only person to comment. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia articles have to be developed minimally to stand. There is no assertion of notability here. The concept may be notable but without article development this should be deleted. Right now no sources are cited either. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage from reliable sources for notability, no refs.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession (Shinee song)[edit]

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

Please check NSONG: there is no indication that this song passes GNG. It is claimed that the song charted, though you'll note that the "reference" goes to the general site for the Gaon chart. Besides that, there's only a link to an album review, and NSONG specifically says we should have more coverage than that. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Song fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. It's a very good song, but it's not notable. I can't imagine the existence of any real discussion about it in any reliable sources, and certainly no one has found any so far. It's just an album track, one of many. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I added a reference for the chart position, but that alone does not make the song notable. --Random86 (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country Party (Australia)[edit]

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

A very new, minor party, unregistered (and extraordinarily unlikely to achieve registration under the current name). Two independent references cited, one in the ABC and one from The Land (the other is an op-ed from the founder), not really indicative of significant notability (basically the founding of the party, so WP:ONEEVENT). An example of WP:TOOSOON, especially since this party is less than a month old. (Removed PROD.) Frickeg (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I wouldn't have even bothered bringing this one to AfD: Country Party (Australia) is an extremely logical redirect as the former name for many decades of Australia's third-largest party, this party is extremely unlikely to ever be registered under this name, and until such time as this party gains registration they're not notable anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that for some reason the AfD notice is not showing on the page itself. I have no idea why. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might be because I used Twinkle to nominate it, it took a little while. It's showing now. As for AfD, it was a removed PROD, which I should have mentioned in the rationale and will add now. Frickeg (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that any decision here is actually based on accurate information. I note that Frickeg elected not to mention that the party was deemed sufficiently notable to be covered on the front page of The Land (15 Jan 2015 edition) even though Frickeg had been made aware of this. There is also considerably more coverage of the party than indicated above and Frickeg was also aware of this but elected not to present that. There is genuine interest in the party which emerges in comments on the article. One of the articles in the land was shared (from The Land website) 1300 times in a few days, suggesting notability especially given the demographic to which it is relevant, this count doesn't include the number of "on-shares".

The party was considered sufficiently notable for it to be attacked by Barnaby Joyce (deputy PM in waiting) here: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/barnabys-ready-for-country-comp/2720978.aspx

More coverage here: http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/cpa-eyes-federal-election/2721134.aspx

There has been no Country Party in Australia for 40 years. The Nationals made a clear choice to abandon the name as they felt it did not accurately reflect their aspirations. Only a very small proportion of the Australian voter base will have ever voted in an Election where a Country Party had candidates. The criticisms above do not reflect this very considerable expanse in time, or decision to disassociate from the name.

The Country Party is particularly notable in that is has been formed in response to an unfolding rural crisis which is a nationally significant issue. Those suffering the effects of the crisis do not feel appropriately represented in the political process.

The founder is himself notable as the immediate past chairman of Grain Producers Australia (GPA) where he represented the interests of all Australian Grain Growers and his organisation had federal oversight of the research program for GRDC. The founder ensured the orderly ongoing carriage of legislated responsibilities after the financial collapse the predecessor of GPA.

Rlm2802 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the AEC records will show that the National Party of Australia was never known by the name of the "Country Party of Australia". As such contrary to the claims above the wikipedia redirection that is presently in place is invalid.

Jam2409 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Jam2409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete per nom - this is a new and unregistered political group who do not meet our notability criteria. I agree that this would be a sensible redirect to the National Party (as a housekeeping matter only, without implying anything regarding this group or the National Party and their relationship). Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of clear indicators of notability have been provided.

It is sufficiently notable for the Warren Truss (deputy PM) and Barnaby Joyce (Minister for Agriculture and federal cabinet member and next Deputy PM) to engage on the issue.

It is sufficiently notable for it to receive front page coverage in The Land (Australia's leading rural press) yesterday.

It is sufficiently notable for it to generate considerable public comment and sharing.

It is sufficiently notable for to be covered in other rural press.

It is sufficiently notable for the ABC to cover it.

It is sufficiently notable for multiple articles in The Land.

It is notable on the basis that it is a direct response to difficult issues facing the rural sector.


This is a rural issue and certainly notable to those concerned with rural issues.

Please therefore explain the statement that "the notability criteria are not met".

Is it possible that the commenters might not be sufficiently familiar with Australian rural issues to be well placed to perceive the notability. It should be understood that this has arisen because rural people felt their issues had been ignored, consider that the deletion of this article constitute a reinforcement of that propensity to consider rural issues irrelevant.

Redirection to the National Party would fail to recognise that the National Party distanced itself from this name starting 4 decades ago on the basis that it considered it a poor descriptor for the party. Redirecting to the Nationals would therefore be directly contrary to their own clearly telegraphed and longstanding intentions.

Rlm2802 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I have never bothered to participate in Wikipedia content before, but this is a topic of great interest to me and I am inclined to be sympathetic to Rlm2802's case. Firstly, he is correct that the National Party was never known as the Country Party of Australia and it is a unique party name in Australia at this time. Secondly, rural and regional representation is in itself very notable and precisely why this Party has been covered so extensively in such a short time and why the story is unlikely to die quickly so WPTOOSOON seems irrelevant. Thirdly, the co founder and chairman Pete Mailler is notable in that a google search yields many articles and these reports cover many roles and events which will add notoriety to this event and in many respects enhances the notability of the Party and its launch. Fourth, his concerns about the accuracy of the redirect of Country Party of Australia to the Nationals is not accurate and in my view is not an acceptable reference for the name. Fifth, a quick search shows that the articles referenced by Rlm2802 plus http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/new-political-voice-for-country-voters/2720196.aspx have been in multiple rural publications in multiple states as well as the online content increasing the notability again. I oppose the deletion proposal and depending on the outcome of this discussion will likely recommend that the pre-existing Country Party of Australia page be deleted because it is inaccurate and misleading. Apologies Rlm2802 if you are not male. OlfR (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — OlfR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is obvious. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the deletion of this page.

In addition to the media articles that have already been mentioned, this issue was deemed suitable for the front page of The Land on 16/01/15 (circulation of over 42,000 per week - details here http://www.fairfaxagmedia.com.au/the-land-1025.html).

I question the political impartiality of the individuals recommending this page for deletion or redirection. Drover's Wife for example appears to have authored multiple biographies of LNP politicians which are unconditionally positive.

I would also ask Nick D's to explain the basis is for his accusation of "sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry".

Fridaycat15 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Fridaycat15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The surge in new accounts whose only purpose is to comment on this discussion might have something to do with it. It's rather silly, and the closing admin will simply ignore comments from such accounts. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I oppose deletion OR redirection.

Nick-D, Drover's Wife & Frickeg all object to the name - The Country Party.

It has been suggested that this page should be redirected to the Nationals page due to the name - The Country Party - being associated with the Nationals.

It has also been suggested that this page should be deleted on the theory that The Country Party is unlikely to be able to register its name with the AEC.

A simple search of the AEC website shows clearly that the only CURRENT parties using the word COUNTRY are: Country Alliance AND Country Liberals (Northern Territory) http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/. Neither of these parties are associated with the Nationals.

A further search shows that the only time that the Nationals were associated with the word COUNTRY was The National Country Party of Australia (WA) which was registered on 5/7/84 and deregistered on 24/7/85. For 384 DAYS over 29 YEARS AGO. It then ceased to exist due to amalgamation. http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Deregistered_parties/ncpa_wa.htm

The Nationals may have used the word COUNTRY unofficially but this is NOT reflected on the AEC website.

Nick-D has also made an accusation of sockpuppetry. Upon being asked to explain this accusation he says The surge in new accounts whose only purpose is to comment on this discussion might have something to do with it. It's rather silly, and the closing admin will simply ignore comments from such accounts.

Nick-D (and others) I cannot speak to your motivation but I am happy to be transparent.

I am a member of the Country Party. I have been following the comments in response to online media (previously cited) and social media, and some very common questions have been - Where can I find more info? Is there a website? Faced with this problem, ordinary people will often search the internet and even specifically go to Wikipedia and try to find out more. This is my motivation for wanting to keep the Country Party Wikipedia page in its current form - I believe that people have the right to information.

As for my account being new, I am a regular reader of Wikipedia but until now I have not felt the need to contribute and hence have not needed an account.

I would also like to state very clearly that I am not being paid in any way shape or form by the Country Party.

Nick-D, Drover's Wife & Frickeg have all implied how meaningless and unlikely to succeed the Country Party is, so I was shocked at the speed and ferocity with which they attacked this page. In light of this I would welcome similar transparency as to your motivation. Fridaycat15 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It may well be that this party will have an article in the future, but right now that is premature. We need to wait at least until it is registered with the Electoral Commission. Whether they object to the name or not is up to them, but I expect them to have some concerns with confusion with the Country Liberal Party in the NT, whose members sit in the Federal Parliament with either the Nationals or the Liberals. The "Country" in the title is there since the County Party in the NT merged with the Liberal Party in the NT when the Nationals were called the Country Party. For now I prefer a complete delete rather than a redirect, but the current article can be moved to user space, such as Fridaycat15's. When it is registered, that will give us some reliable sources from the press. At present the sources are not that reliable. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Bduke - Thank you for your balanced and reasonable input.

For my own future reference, I would appreciate any advice you have on including more reputable sources.

I take your point that ref#1 (the party website) and #3 (blog written by one of founders) may not credible, although I will add that the blog is not a personal one, it is published by The Land.

Ref#2 is from ABC news. Ref#4 and #5 and from The Land, with the latter being the front page article on the most recent weekly edition. I (perhaps naively) believed that these sources would be reputable.

Considering the aim of the party is rural and regional representation I think The Land (and its equivalents outside of NSW) is perhaps the most relevant publication. Fridaycat15 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Userfy. A group with only a hundred members is one of many organisations that might one day become a registered political party, but is not currently nor ever has been one. A note to the passionate opposers of this deletion - it is acceptable to edit and improve the article during the period of this deletion discussion. As many of you are new to Wikipedia policy and process, I suggest that you read the Guide to deletion to understand what is being discussed, and WP:NOTABILITY to understand what is required in the article to demonstrate that it should be kept. long responses to every person on this page will do nothing towards retaining the article, nor will inviting more supporters to comment here, because this is not a vote. Also note that there is a difference between "credible" sources and "reliable" sources. I suggest it is WP:TOOSOON until the party is registered in at least one jurisdiction, for example the Australian Cyclists Party article was not started until the first version of the article had a reference to the list of registered parties (I have sympathy to both and relationship with neither ACP nor CPA). --Scott Davis Talk 23:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not delete this page ***

1. Because this is a political entry - regardless of party status - deleting the page opens wikipedia to accusations of political bias. It could be argued the people arguing for the page to be deleted are politically motivated. 2. Because this issue is in flux the status quo should be maintained pro tem. The page should stay up. A time could be set, say one year, for review. 3. The page itself makes reference to the fact that it is a fledgling party, and it essentially correct and appropriate in regard to it's content. 4. The argument to delete is contrived. So what if the party is not registered? Clearly the page is timely and relevant. Dr Julian Fidge, Country Doctor, Wangaratta, Australia, former candidate for Australian Country Alliance, Victorian State Election, November 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Fidge (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As Scott Davis says above, it really would help all concerned if you carefully studied some at least of our policies and guidelines particularly our notability guidelines and the guide to deletion. We are not biased or political motivated. We just know more about the standards of Wikipedia. You will probably have to accept that it will be deleted for now and put into user space where you can work on it. What it really needs is a reliable source about the registration of the party. Until it is registered it should be deleted. To do otherwise might be seen as bias against all the other articles about unregistered political parties that have been deleted in the past. It really is too soon to have this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not redirecting because the proposed target don't mention MX-14 at all. Feel free to create the redirect if that changes. KTC (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MX-14[edit]

MX-14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

may not meet WP:PRODUCT.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 20:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to AntiX, not covered sufficiently on its own to warrant a separate article. Vrac (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a very short, unreferenced, unwikified article that provides minimal context and does not establish notability or importance to justify a stand alone article under WP:PRODUCT. There is really nothing here to redirect or merge. Dfadden (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indicia of independent notability. I have no objection to a redirect to AntiX, if desired. Neutralitytalk 05:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could not establish notability. No mention on antiX or MEPIS. ~KvnG 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Kvng and others. Since the entire content of the article is: "MX-14 is a Linux distrobution based on debian that was created by The AntiX and Mepis communities.", nothing much is lost in deleting it. If sources are found, it can be recreated without having lost anything. Note wp:PRODUCT states that any editor usually can just merge and redirect a product article into the main company article, without an AFD, but here there's nothing to merge and the redirect target would not be obvious. Redirect to either antiX or MEPIS seems not warranted, as those articles don't cover it, and I don't see why they should. --doncram 18:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage from reliable sources for notability, no refs.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Most of the debate centers on whether or not ambassadors are inherently notable. I would like to note that such shortcuts (whether or not supported by specialty guidelines) are based on the assumption that, given the prominence of a certain position, sources must somehow exist somewhere. However, we still need sources and apparently none have been found by the participants in this debate. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ignatius[edit]

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

Contested prod, well established that ambassadors and high commissioners are not inherently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Several mentions in RS, but no apparent direct coverage. NickCT (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - significant coverage is required; ambassadors are not inherently notable. St★lwart111 23:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I de-prodded the article since it seemed to me that it deserved an AfD. Based on the subject's website[18], after his 2008 retirement from the diplomatic service, he's been fairly active as a newspaper columnist. There are also some external websites, e.g. [19] which indicate that he became active in the christian evangelical movement, and something called Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity lists him as a fellow. I am not sufficiently interested in the subject to dig deeper and see if there is sufficient coverage of his associated with his post-diplomatic activities, but maybe somebody else could take a closer look.... Nsk92 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, saw those too, but we need coverage of the subject, not by the subject. St★lwart111 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In my view ambassadors are generally notable. Between Commonwealth countries the equivalent is High Commissioner, so that the same applies. It should not be difficult to find a reliable source for his diplomatic postings. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
have you actually found sources to show WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that holders of notable posts should be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysian High Commissioner to Canada is not a notable post. St★lwart111 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not? Most ambassador and high commissioner posts are notable. They're very senior people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and several ambassador articles have been deleted. You know there is no inherent notability but recycle this weak argument in ambassador AfDs. LibStar (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most aren't and don't have articles of their own - Australian Ambassador to France, French Ambassador to China and Ambassador of China to Australia. A handful are. There is ongoing debate about whether individuals (like the subject here) should be considered notable by default because of their position but the notability of the position itself is something else. There isn't consensus for "most ambassadors and high commissioners are notable" at the moment but it certainly remains a valid opinion. One I disagree with, but valid nonetheless. St★lwart111 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You think that postholders are only notable if their post has an article. I would disagree with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all, but I think that postholders are likely to be notable if their post does have an article. You were talking about notable posts, rather than notable people. For everyone else it's a case-by-case basis and we generally fall back to WP:GNG. I disagree with the premise that "ambassadors are notable". I lived in Canberra, a small city filled with diplomats. Those ambassadors were just ordinary people like everyone else and there was nothing notable about them at all. They drove the same cars as everyone else, ate at the same restaurants and their kids played in the same soccer teams. Notable people can tick those boxes too but the point is that they were just ordinary mid-tier public servants whose departments happened to be outside their own countries, overseas. Were they working for the department of foreign affairs / state department in their own country, they'd never be considered notable. I don't think they become notable by default because their desk is slightly further away. But others are notable without question. Among Australians, John Berry is a rock-star. His sweaters are almost notable in their own right. Ambassadors and other diplomats should be judged on a case-by-case basis. St★lwart111 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Two of us have voted to keep. The objection seems to be that the appropriate list article for his predecessors does not exist. Does that not point to a lacuna in WP that should be filled? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And three of use have opined for deletion. Not quite sure what you're asking. St★lwart111 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mere holding of an office does not itself confer notability. The guy's website to promote his book seems to be defunct. I see some blog mentions of him and some columns he wrote for The Malaysian Insider, but I'm not seeing any independent, significant third-party coverage of the man himself. There may be some material in a foreign language out there, but I'm a delete in the absence of anything forthcoming. Neutralitytalk 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. several ambassador articles have been deleted so the argument that ambassadors are inherently notable is plainly void. this person fails to get sufficient coverage. LibStar (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was under the impression that ambassadors were regarded as inherently notable; in fact, I created a few articles myself on that basis. Is anyone able to point me to the relevant deletion debates? StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here's a few afds of ambassadors deleted:

LibStar (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. But the first one is a bad example, since he was never an ambassador anyway (and one editor changed their !vote when that came to light). The second one, I note, was an high commissioner to Kirbati. I think it's definitely fair to say that ambassadors are generally notable. StAnselm (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm, there have been several discussions. The closest we've ever gotten is agreement that ambassadors from one major country to another major country would generally be notable (no inherently, but logically). There is no consensus (anywhere) that all ambassadors are inherently notable, quite the opposite. WP:NPOL specifically removes them as a result. High Commissioners and Ambassadors have the same rank, the former generally means both are part of the Commonwealth. St★lwart111 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider:
...as examples of other ambassadors with articles recently deleted. St★lwart111 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some do, most done, and we still need "multiple". St★lwart111 06:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is another one. StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it is definitely not fair to say all ambassadors are notable, no consensus for this in AfDs and no notability criterion states this. There is no inherent notability Whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Steve-O. 2 redirect, 1 keep (non-admin closure)  - The Herald (here I am) 16:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Idiot: A Memoir[edit]

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

Article has so little information, it ought to be merged with the main Steve-O article. Any user browsing the Steve-O article and clicking on the link to the article on his book for more information would surely be disappointed. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (message) @ 20:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. There is nothing to indicate that this book is separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator is proposing a merge, so this probably should have been closed as a wrong venue speedy keep. The book has received several examples of indpendent coverage (and one piece written by Steve-O himself), e.g. [20], [21], [22], [23] and made the New York Times best sellers list ([24]). This really should be expanded and once that is done, a merge considered if size considerations make that appropriate. --Michig (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not independently notable - but no objection to a redirect to article on the author, if desired. Neutralitytalk 05:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No respondent to the AfD supported a delete, and a large number of reliable surces were brought up showing notability. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy[edit]

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CorporateM seems to think there's something here worth keeping; I'm sure the organization paid him handsomely to remove my beautiful PROD. At any rate, I think this organization is not proven to be notable yet. Also, happy new year. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the article should have just been deleted as spam, but now that Drmies has cleaned it up, the remainder is worth keeping, however will need to be watchlisted and protected if necessary to avoid further promo/copyvio. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (commune) @ 20:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 20:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to pass WP:ORG, I was all set to say "delete" because the article contains only one reference, a brief encyclopedia entry. However, a Google News search shows that the organization is very high profile [25] [26] [27]. The article should be expanded to include some of this material. --MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to COA Ontario. - After being up for 3 weeks there's not been much of a discussion and those that have !voted have gone with redirecting, Don't really see any point in relisting either. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Pinizzotto[edit]

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

I have carefully tried to verify each source cited in the article, have performed significant cleanup, and looked for additional sources. At this point, I feel compelled to nominate this article for deletion (as has been done already).

Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that notability is supported if the person has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable", and there is "depth of coverage". In source after source, Pinizzotto , a successful real-estate salesperson from Toronto, appears to offer one or two-sentence comments about condominium-related issues to local media (see here and here). There is no depth of coverage, and no indication this person "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".

As well, Pinizzotto's notability appears to rely on her relationship with the Condo Owners Association in the Province of Ontario. In the same two reliable sources listed above (here and here), Pinizzotto's association with that organization are mentioned. Thus, a merging of the Pinizzotto article may be appropriate.

Finally, Pinizzotto's notability is enhanced in the article by her "radio show", and the article has been added to the category "Canadian radio personalities". This claim does not appear to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability. The "radio station" Pinizzotto is purported to be associated with, as reported here, is an online media supplier called "thehazefm.ca", owned by Whiterock Media. It does not appear to be a radio station.

Because the creator of this article, User talk:Formula2013, seems focused on articles dealing with Pinizzotto and her two sons, Jason Pinizzotto and Steve Pinizzotto, it begs the question about whether this article is an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged, or a conflict of interest, which this editor was cautioned about here. Pinizzotto has also placed free audio clips on Apple iTunes here, along with the message "you can learn more about Linda on Wikipedia". Magnolia677 (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COA Ontario. There are no significant references about her. The ones that mention her are in the context of this association. Saying that she has notability would be like saying that every spokesperson for a notable company is notable. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 15:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirection to COA Ontario might be acceptable, but even that article is a primary sourced mess with overtones of advertising, which is itself a potential deletion candidate — so I'd actually prefer to just delete. But failing a consensus for that, count me toward redirect as well, because no matter what happens this isn't properly sourced enough to stand as an independent WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. For lack of participation.  Sandstein  15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: World Trade Center Archive[edit]

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

Does not indicate notability; the article contains only the briefest description of the book Lopifalko (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (inform) @ 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) @ 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed, see comment below) Was:"Merge and redirect to a list-article on broader topic." The nominator is correct that there is little here. However, I notice the book article is in Category:Books about the September 11 attacks along with 38 others (non-fiction and novels, both). And a quick search suggests that the topic of books about September 11 attacks is itself notable. E.g.
Certainly a list-article on such books is a valid topic, and this one book article can better be merged/redirected to that, unless and until there is reason to have a separate article about this book. Say List of books about the September 11 attacks (currently a red-link). Due to an editing restriction, i can't start the list-article in mainspace, but have started Draft:List of books about the September 11 attacks and will submit that via Articles For Creation process. It's a better resolution, less negative to the contributor(s).
--doncram 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am open to the list-article becoming just a section in a bigger article about historiography of September 11 attacks, including news coverage, etc., and I will link to any such articles if I find them. But so far I just find a list-article on Cultural references to the September 11 attacks, which is much broader. I think there's need for more focused list-article like i have started. Note per wp:CLT, it complements the corresponding category; the size of the category suggests need for a good list-article providing some perspective. I expect to build a table with publication dates and more. --doncram 17:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Update The List of books about the September 11 attacks article has been created in mainspace, and now serves as a suitable merge-and-redirect target, until and unless more coverage about this book itself makes it more clearly notable on its own. If this AFD is closed that way, I would be happy to merge the entire short contents of the current Aftermath: World Trade Center Archive article to there. Each book in the list there should get a one or two or three sentence description like that. Thanks. --doncram 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I changed my Vote from Merge to Keep above. There are plenty of hits on the book, e.g. Time magazine calling the original work "seminal" in their intro to a set of follow-up photos. The deletion nomination just says the current article is not supported with sources, it does not indicate wp:BEFORE has been performed, and it appears to me by quick searching that numerous sources are available. Nonetheless i am glad to have started the related list-article. --doncram 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Entry (band)[edit]

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

Defunct non-notable band that "never achieved mainstream success". Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Forced Entry was responsible for leading or pioneering the Seattle or Washington state thrash metal scene, and they are notable for the inclusion of Brad Hull, who is now in Sanctuary. Thrashaholic88 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. User:Thrashaholic88 is the creator of Forced Entry (band)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (chew) @ 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable band by a notable musician with references. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are presently only four references. The first [28] is from a questionable source with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The second [29] is from an unreliable source that is not independent of the subject. The last two [30] [31] are primary sources, that simply list the name of the band.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the interview cited in the article [32] there are album reviews at AllMusic [33] and Blabbermouth [34], and a biography at Encyclopaedia Metallum [35]. The band is included as an important 'also ran' at Gibson [36] and in print [37] [38] [39]. Not enough perhaps to independently establish WP:N per element 1 of WP:BAND, but enough to persuade me that Thrashaholic88 was right about the band's importance.
Proposer should have offered some editorial assistance here instead of trying to kill the article within 10 minutes of its creation [40]. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: preceding editor has added external links to track listings.
A misstatement of fact, Becky; none of the seven links are track listings [41]. Album reviews (2), biographies (2), Gibson Guitar's estimation of the band's importance, band's publication history at Discogs, and the band's Myspace page. Please sign your comments when you editorialize. Unsigned small text can be mistaken for an unbiased administrative caution. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND#5 requires "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labelsn (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)". There is no reliable source indicating the band was signed by Combat records. See WP:BURDEN. Combat records is not a major record label. Combat is not one of the more important indie labels. Its article says it was taken over and dissolved by Sony, and none of the bands attributed to it are referenced. Reading this guideline broadly enough to include Combat leads to an argument for double INHERITED Notability, from the notable other bands up to the record label and back down to the one being discussed. Even assuming a pass on WP:BAND, the guideline only indicates that it "may be notable". It still needs to pass WP:GNG. As discussed above, all of the references (including external links recently added) are either trivial mentions [42] [43] [44], track listings, primary sources, or from sources with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy [45] [46] [47](allows user submitted content) [48](allows user submitted content)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(tl;dr? (1) WP:N per WP:BAND, elements 5 and 6; (2) sufficient sources exist for the topic; (3) it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.)
There are two considerations here. First, the subject of the article must be worthy of the editorial resources needed to improve it. That's WP:N in a nutshell. A successful label is presumed able to identify worthy artists. It doesn't idly prognosticate but backs its opinion with its money and reputation, so an artist with continued backing (per the "two's a trend" metric) is presumed worthy of editorial attention. That's WP:BAND#5 in a nutshell. There's no weird transitive property of notability at work here, as you seem to believe.
This band is in fact notable per WP:BAND#5. Combat operated independently from 1983 until 1991 when it was folded back into parent Relativity. That's nine years, ten before the "Combat/Relativity" imprint was finally dropped [49] ff. By your logic you have no more than a few toes. The article does in fact list Combat artists, including Forced Entry and my exemplars supra; references have been added. Both the label and this band satisfy the criteria specified in WP:BAND#5, and now I see that the band also satisfies WP:BAND#6.
Second, there must be sources sufficient to write a factual article; otherwise the question of notability is moot. The article references are reliable within the context of the statements they support. None are self-published, none are questionable. The xtreemmusic.org bio was apparently written from the album liner notes; most of that information is available in interview [2(18)] supra. Blabbermouth does allow some user content, but the references don't cite user content. Encyclopaedia Metallum isn't cited as a reference; that bio is also apparently abstracted from album liner notes. The "trivial mentions" in [10(15)] [11(16)] [12(17)] supra establish the band's relevance within the contemporary Seattle music scene, perfectly good references in that context. Primary references [3],[4] supra show the band touring nationally with other notable bands, likewise reliable sources for the same reason, and sufficient to demonstrate WP:N per WP:BAND#6 as well. Clearly a factual article can be written from available sources.
WP:BAND is not a secondary "screen" but a topical elaboration of WP:GNG - notice please WP:GNG neatly summarized as element 1. You're parsing the guideline much too finely - a subject "may be notable" if it satisfies any element of WP:BAND, and WP:GNG is "not a guarantee" of WP:N. Two ways of expressing the same notion, I think. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Thomas the Apostle#Mission in India. There is consensus that this article is heavily flawed, and the one keep vote supported a redirect to an appropriate article as an outcome. As such, there is consensus for a redirect. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maliyekal Thoma[edit]

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

This article survived a prod back in 2009, but it remains a very short article with multiple problems, flagged up in 2010, and no attempt to deal with them. PatGallacher (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (yak) @ 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (say) @ 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thomas the Apostle#Mission in India. Pax
  • Keep or find a suitable redirect target. I suspect the problem is that nothing is known of the subject apart from what the article says about him. This is a common problem with ancient history. The subject is presumably a saint of the St Thomas Christians, which has a section dealing with their origins. The problem is that the earliest source on St Thomas in India is from about 200 years after the events described. One solution might be to have a list article on such early St Thomas Christians and use this article as a start for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Walela[edit]

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

Youth championship only ; mention in one source, not notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 13:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I too can find only trivial coverage in one source. He does not otherwise meet any subject specific notability guideline. Bellerophon talk to me 23:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tears of a Tiger[edit]

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

Unsourced, promotional, non-notable, over-emphasis on plot. Also nominating the following related novels, which are sequels to this novel:

Forged by Fire (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Darkness Before Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 18:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 20:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Mathew[edit]

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

Activist who -- well, has a story. I can't find much for references, and practically all of the external links are dead, including the official support site for the subject. I can't find references when searching the linked court sites, which seems a bit surprising. Strong bias in the existing article, particularly lacking references. Mikeblas (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that all of the article's few references are all dead links suggests that it its subject is far from notable. BenLinus1214talk 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage from reliable sources for notability. Refs leave article unverifiable.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Nagul[edit]

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

Non notable Coach who has never coached the first team in a Fully professional league of any famous Club neither has got significant coverage. He is just an assistant and there is no credibility to the source claiming his licenses which is mentioned in the article. He may someday become a head coach but as of today does not deserve a wiki article as Wiki is not for promotion- Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. This article was proposed three times for deletion and the PROD, prod2 tag has been repeatedly removed by the creator of the article Currently fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaprash (talk • contribs) 18:03, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Above reasoning is of the nominator of the third AfD, which I speedily closed as malformed. Safiel (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. No experience as a head coach at a fully professional level. Safiel (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL,WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Not a famous person in the world of professional football and does not quality the notability criteria either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaprash (talk • contribs) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick tcs 09:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:NCONCERT TOUR, as there's possibly one independent reliable source (though with a name of "concertblogger.com", I can't be sure), certainly not the multiples required. While R5 is notable, that does not make each of their tours notable, or indeed any of them. Fan sources are simply not reliable by Wikipedia standards, and this article's remaining references are a fan website and a setlist wikia, both unacceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator's case is cut and dry; no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Snow talk 15:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimsen Gurung[edit]

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

Don't see how this person meets WP:NACTOR, created by an editor who has mainly worked on this article so possible self promotion. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. Fails notability inclusion criteria. Poorly sourced BLP. Gaff (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The last comment suggests that the "delete" opinions may be outdated.  Sandstein  15:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janardanswamy[edit]

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

Notability not shown. I proposed merging to the page about this person's disciple Eknath in May 2014 but, although the articles once overlapped,[50] the overlapping material has been removed, probably for lack of sourcing. Only one source has been given, from a website about Eknath, and that is in Hindi. – Fayenatic London 20:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: there seem to be reliable sources in English when one accounts for variable swelling (search Janardan + Eknath). See [51], for example. (The usual spelling seems to be "Janardan Swami"; I am not sure about diacritics.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is as empty as the inside of a pingpong ball. The subject does not appear to have left behind any written works or done anything of repute. Pax 07:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Very weak keep The article's author has all of five edits on the project to their name, the last one a year-and-a-half ago, so I'm dubious that this article will ever be fleshed out in a significant manner that will establish the subject's significance as a historical figure, but Hasirpad is correct; there do seem to be reliable sources which discuss him to some limited degree, if only to say that little is certain about him. Snow talk 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Anupmehra's findings bellow. Snow talk 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A poorly sourced biography that has been tagged for notability for nine months. Clearly fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214talk 01:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -The spelling is messed up, the correct one as suggest above by Hasirpad is "Janardan Swami". Okay, now here is the coverage of subject that helps them meet the WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard, -[52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], etc. Seriously, there are more than just enough to establish notability of the subject. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mishing Autonomous Council[edit]

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

Looks like a village council. No sources Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Terrible article. It's in the wrong name space for a part. It is an autonomous region of India, so definitely notable. I will move it to the right title, which is Mising Autonomous Council, when this finishes. JTdaleTalk~ 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep* following improvements by User:JTdale. The article now makes clear that this is an officially-established representative council for an indigenous minority group, with adequately reliable sourcing. PWilkinson (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Rugby[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. IMO 9,000 users for a game just don't warrant an article. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - Since the nom's put "Speedy Keep" below I'm taking this as a nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Nos[edit]

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

Most certainly a hoax, as neither the article of Grand Duchy of Lithuania mentions about him nor Google has any information. Besides, it survived on Wikipedia for at least 8 years now and it's still a stub. I hardly even doubt that if the "Battle of Ugra" red link mentions about a city in either Poland or Lithuania, because Ugra's disambiguation page mentions about areas in Russia and Romania. Snowager (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not fluent in Polish so I had to rely on a Google translation of some of this, but this book snippet mentions a Jerzy Nos. This one does as well and while my disclaimer of not understanding a lick of Polish still applies, some of the basic sentence structure makes it look as if the article is almost a direct translation of this book's passage. I don't think that this is necessarily a hoax in other words, but the person's notability is most certainly in question. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not a hoax, as a quick Google Books search proves ([65]), through the sources are in Polish, the good practice in such a case is to ask a relevant WikiProject such as WP:POLAND for comment, before bringing this here (@Snowager:). The question remains whether the subject is notable (he doesn't even have an article on pl wiki, although that's not a direct indicator of notability). A few minutes of looking at the sources, or snippets of, suggests that his entire bio would never be much longer; he is mentioned in a few historical documents to the extent that the article already covers. Since Wikipedia:Notability (nobility) never passed, it's hard to be sure whether being a knyaz, as some sources suggest (and they may be wrong, since it was a Russian, not a Polish title) is enough. Ditto with regards to what is likely a more correct title, Starosta (a regional medieval Polish official). I don't think he passes WP:BIO on "part of the enduring historical record" ; he is not mentioned by any Polish encyclopedia; just briefly in passing in some books on history. So... I'd probably say "weak delete", but I am a bit of an inclusionist for old historical biographies, so I'll just abstain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep - not a hoax, that's one thing. And if it is, plenty of reputable sources claim otherwise. Another thing - I expanded the article a little and added some sources. Finally, there is a chance we have this guy on other wikipedias under a different name, would have to check that. Finally, Ugra is a river that formed the border between Muscovy and Lithuania (not a town). And a place where the Muscovite and Lithuanian armies met (though eventually there was no battle, rather a standoff). //Halibutt 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. You know what? I agree with all of you. Even though it survived for 8 years without sources, I now know it's not a hoax since you guys all have told me some sources. He might not be as notable, but we may keep this article and finally add some sources. Snowager (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darius, the Hand of Noxus[edit]

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

This should be deleted or redirected to League of Legends, this is fan content that should be included in the League of Legends wiki, not Wikipedia. Non-notable video game character. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 13:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mwetoolkit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Page was previously deleted for this reason after being PROD'd by me. In this undeletion request, creator Ceramisch claims to count 93 citations for the software on GScholar, but I could only find the following citation figures for mwetoolkit papers by C. Ramisch et al.:

(And there's overlap between the 29 and the 17 as well.)

To be fair, there is a book, again by C. Ramisch, and published by Springer, but that has no citations at all (not surprising, given that its publication date is 2015) and doesn't only cover the software but the theory of multi-word expression extraction in general. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mwetoolkit author's response[edit]

I am the author of the Mwetoolkit and of the respective Wikipedia page. When I stated that the mwetoolkit had 93 citations, I meant 93 mentions, sorry about that. The citation counts above seem accurate to me. I would like to add 2 other articles that describe specific parts or improvements of the mwetoolkit, and also my PhD thesis. The citations have possible overlaps with the ones above:

I performed a specific search in the ACL Anthology and found 60 mentions to the mwetoolkit in papers, from which I identified 9 of my papers. Of course they include the mentions in Google Scholar, but each article appears only once. I also regularly receive emails of people using the toolkit and who have questions about it. I think it is useful to have a Wikipedia page that describes the tool to the community and to the general public. I can largely improve the current stub with the help of other users and developers of the toolkit.

I believe that this demonstrates the notability and usefulness of the software in the research community in general. However, I let the administrators judge as to whether this meets the thresholds for WP:NSOFT or not.

Ceramisch (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources presented here seem to fail WP:RS policy; they don't seem to be peer reviewed; the websites seem to be just generic paper repositories (see [66]). In other words, just hosts for self-published content. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: the ACL proceedings contain peer-reviewed papers presented at ACL conferences. I'm not sure if the workshops are as rigidly reviewed as the "real" conference; generally the acceptance rules for workshops are a bit laxer. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find multiple, in depth, secondary, reliable sources discussing this software. Thus the software seems to fail general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I could believe that some of the conference papers noted above are peer reviewed, which would make them reliable, but they are still primary and not independent of the program's creators. Citations are nice, but are not considered in depth. My sense is that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for in-depth secondary RS to have been written and published. --Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - author may want to consider getting to know some tech journalists (newspapers and online publications, not bloggers), in an effort to engender some neutral press coverage. Earflaps (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mark Viking above. Also, author should be STRONGLY discouraged from editing the page should it be recreated in the future per WP:COI. PianoDan (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashantt Guptha[edit]

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

Non notable actor. The article created by a sockpuppet of the subject of the article (WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). Already speedied three times [67]. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. The article should be speedy deleted as WP:g5. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 01:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -Hello Vanjagenije, why it wasn't WP:G5ed? If we are going to ignore creation by a blocked user and discuss eligibility of subject against Wikipedia standards, then they meet Wikipedia's General notability guideline and WP:NACTOR #1 and you should really think about withdrawing your nomination. Here are the sources, -[68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. -few have significant coverage, -few have short mentions but prove substantial role in notable film(s) per nactor #1. See also, list of sources in the article, -they are offline but available as clippings on subject's official website, as such this one, [78], [79], [80]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anupmehra: I nominated the page for deletion before the author was revealed to be a sock of blocked user, so G5 did not apply at that moment. Anyway, it does apply now, so the article should be speedy deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O! I see now. I was confused reading the nomination rationale, that it was created by a sock. I've tagged it for speedy per G5. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Maginnis[edit]

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

Certainly not-notable per WP:SOLDIER. Google search has him with the Family Research Council, but that does not entail notability. Not notable as a pundit. – S. Rich (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's also an author. http://www.amazon.com/Robert-L.-Maginnis/e/B00J5I8EJW/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 Hcobb (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly WP:AUTHOR applies. Which I do not think he meets. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Either keep (and cleanup) or merge remain options for further discussion.  Sandstein  15:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of open access projects[edit]

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

This is a directory, with no sources, just external links. It'd be a pity if WP editors were to waste any time salvaging the content herein instead of spending their time more constructively adding sourced material in existing articles. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Fgnievinski (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Open access. SamuelDay1 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The internal external links for entities that have no Wikipedia article are the biggest problem; they should either be converted to redlinks with references (as I've done here, for example), or removed from the list if they are not notable. Some reorganizing could help too. However, this should not be merged with open access, which is already a long article; see WP:SUMMARY -Pete (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non notable can be removed and the notable one should be added with a summary, after that we won't have to merge. SamuelDay1 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with caveat. This page does satisfy the notability criteria for stand-alone lists as the list topic has been discussed as a group [81] [82]. The external links to the various databases should be removed (or judiciously converted into redlinks), but WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not prohibit links to articles already covered, thus the list should be kept. Oppose merge per Pete. Altamel (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mark_Noyce#Filmography, redirect is preferred to deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blazing Cannons[edit]

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

Notability: WP:TOOSOON TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page:[reply]

Keeping It Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): another yet-to-be-released film ffrom the same dubiously notable production company/director. There is obviously promotional article creation happening here.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: No evidence they meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Press releases and database entries are the only coverage I can find. Kolbasz (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Possibly redirect. We don't do films before they are released unless the making of the film has been the topic of substantial third-party coverage, not counting advance PR. About the only ones that I can think of that qualify are the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to Mark_Noyce#Filmography. Right now it's just way, way too soon for them to have an article. A lot can happen between when a film is announced and when it's released. Filming can start but be scrapped partway through, be delayed, and films can be scrapped altogether. I couldn't really find where either film has received the necessary amount of coverage to merit an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Crowd[edit]

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

As the service has not begun, it is WP:TOOSOON. CSD WP:G11 removed by sock of author (now blocked.) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If it is judged notable when it begins, then it's a Keep. Feb 2015 is only next month, after all. Jjamesryan (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the Huffington Post source, "Emerging Crowd, headquartered in London and under FCA regulation, is the first investment-based crowdfunding platform exclusively focused on frontier and emerging market companies." That sounds notable. Other sources support WP:GNG met. Gaff (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick google search brings up plenty of sources. Many are in niche industry magazines and the like but there is plenty of coverage in national papers and other publications. St★lwart111 02:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Malformed AfD. Will immediately renominate. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Nagul (3rd nomination)[edit]

Vivek Nagul (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Coach who has never coached the first team in a Fully professional league of any famous Club neither has got significant coverage. He is just an assistant and there is no credibility to the source claiming his licenses which is mentioned in the article. He may someday become a head coach but as of today does not deserve a wiki article as Wiki is not for promotion- Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. This article was proposed three times for deletion and the PROD, prod2 tag has been repeatedly removed by the creator of the article Currently fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_16&oldid=1142626023"