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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

This article is written by a COI editor, and there is no notability to their organisation. The sources are weak, when I actually wrote what the sources say I managed about 3 lines of text, although this editor then removed the only well-written part of the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Looks like everything out there that could serve as a source is social media or self-generated. Thoroughly fails WP:ORG. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

--Yedhukrishna Menon 21:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Hi My name is Yedhukrishna Menon, fortunately the founder of Helping Brainz, which have been nominated for deletion. Helping Brainz is a non profit making organization based in Delhi which works for the underpriviledged on the weekends, since the members of the organization are working professionals. we never work/worked to bear fruits, so nothing fancy to boast about as well. Helping Brainz is all about a passion which young Indians wants to spread (spreading here doesn't mean publicity) throughout the world so that the world one day can become a store house of self-less workers. Few days back to invite more human beings to this ideology, I thought of creating a Wikipedia page, where I plan to include some short and crisp information, just to motivate the youth to work for the community. Now it's Wikipedia's decision to delete it or not. I will continue my community service even without the Wikipedia Page. Everything happens for good. Thank you--Yedhukrishna Menon 21:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And nothing is SOCIAL MEDIA SELF GENERATED--Yedhukrishna Menon 21:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yedhukrishnamenon ( talk • contribs)

Also to add on : as mentioned by @ Joseph2302: he helped me editing the same however, for instance what he cited in the page is "Delhi University conducted "Udaan", and which is wrong, so re-entered the information as "Helping Brainz in association with AIESEC in Delhi University conducted "Udaan", and because of which he mentioned that the 'COI' user deleted the information entered by the administrator.

My complaint is that the information I added was correct, because I used the sources. Instead of using the sources, you were just saying whatever. But apparently your whatever is better. But this definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO - I was trying to see it's notability, was never convinced it was very notable. Also, stop pinging me everytime you write something, and stop posting on my talkpage, it won't change my opinion. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I dont agree with you Joseph. The sentence framed by you had different meanings, don't know what you read in the sources. I conducted the event so I know it better, so thank you. Please go ahead and do whatever you want with my page. Won't disturb you!--Yedhukrishna Menon 21:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yedhukrishnamenon ( talk • contribs)

• Delete I would already have speedy deleted it except that a speedy was previously declined, by in order to let the contributor have a chance to improve it. That decline was not wrong, but it prevents a speedy now. I think this is absolutely hopeless promotionalism, and a SNOW delete would be in order. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I agree, it would be speedy deletable if I hadn't previously removed it. My reason for removing it was that it seemed like the editor was heading in the right direction, removing some of the promotional stuff. But I was never convinced by the notability, and this still reads super-promotional. At least by doing this AfD it can never be created again, as it will fail WP:CSD#G4. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Well, it can be if it suddenly meets WP:ORG, which does happen sometimes because it was too soon. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as multiple searches failed to find even one significant source and I don't see any hope for the article. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Glad people agree with me. Joseph2302 ( talk) 02:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:CactusWriter per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 18:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Laurel Williams Academy (  | 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 tag was removed because "schools offering secondary education generally accepted as notable". However, this school does not offer secondary education, considering it only teaches to 12 years of age. Still unsourced and orphaned after 6 years, I can't see anything whatsoever online that could be used as a reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as multiple searches failed to find even one significant source. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless it can be proven through a reliable source to exist. Teaches to Grade 12 - not 12 years old.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Article claims this is a high school, but multiple searches find no evidence this school exists. Ed.gov has no record of any such school in Florida. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

I've been unable to drag up any WP:RS about this band or decent mentions to pass WP:GNG - surprising given the claims of grandeur and BBC petitions breaking records. I can't even find a decent website for the band - the one in the article points to a T-shirt shop.

I have been able to find blogs saying their appearance at this rave was good, etc. but that's not enough to pass GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 20:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete notability search falls short of WP:BAND so i think the group may lack encyclopedic importance, but per WP:ALTERNATIVE I think they could have a good article on WikiBands or another such wiki. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as multiple searches failed to find one significant source. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. A search for sources turned up no coverage in reliable sources and the references cited are press releases, self published sources and her personal website. SmartSE ( talk) 20:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as multiple searches found no significant results aside from two press releases (republished). The article does not indicate any substantial notability and is self-promotional. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete This smells like a hoax, right down to the supposed photograph with Ghaddafi. Everything out there is self-generated, and the only thing that looked half decent ended up being a press release repeated by four different sites. If it's not a hoax then it's a souped-up vanity bio; in any case it fails to meet WP:BIO. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 08:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Only found two press releases and a website. No credible independent sources. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:HOAX. The clue (according to the linked article) is in her non-appearance in the film Kidulthood as claimed.  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 21:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as blatant hoax. - Location ( talk) 03:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete hoax. — Jonny Nixon - ( Talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clear hoax. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Obvious hoax is obvious . – Davey2010 ^Talk 05:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass GNG. Murphy does not appear to do so and his previous playing career also does not make him notable. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 19:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor ( talk) 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. A search for sources turned up no coverage in reliable sources and the references cited in the article are self-published/press releases. SmartSE ( talk) 19:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete : Indeed SmartSE, this person fails notability coverage ! SarahKrauch ( talk) 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 17:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete as searches only found republished press releases, no substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Eileen Wagstaff (  | 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 am unable to find significant coverage (or indeed any coverage) of the subject in reliable sources so the topic fails the general criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The problem might be that the coverage is under her maiden name but that name is not currently given in the article. Pichpich ( talk) 17:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, fails WP:BIO, but why contest the PROD just to bring it to AfD? Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Blame Twinkle's resolution of the edit conflict. But now that the AfD page has been created, we might as well go down the slow-deletion route. Pichpich ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I performed a few searches with the little information given and I can't find any significant sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

No independent sources which discuss the person in length to establish notability of the artist. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete. A resume without references. I didn't find any sources discussing her in detail on Google News or Google (20 first results). Mentions in passing, yes, but that's nothing special. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete and salt. I've been watching this page. Created, deleted and recreated by SPA. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, and the article is basically just a resume. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Heartstrings Tour (  | 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 concert tour, fails WP:NCONCERT ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Support: Fails WP:NCONCERT. Plain and simple. PrairieKid ( talk) 03:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete. fails WP:GNG and no other indications of notability. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect to Leighton_Meester#Tours - This could be redirected to save it for the future (although it is unlikely it will be notable) and a News search only finds gossip sites and such, no substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Docurated (  | 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 subject seems to fail WP:NCORP. A number of trivial news mentions and PR sources online, but nothing that meets the "depth of coverage" section of the relevant notability guideline. VQuakr ( talk) 03:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The only source on the page is not Reliable. When you click on the flag of the source referenced, you are taken to some kind of phony sales page. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Zero notability. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: A Highbeam search turns up various press release based items, plus an indication that the firm was one of 28 finalists in TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2013 Reports Startup Battlefield but nothing indicating WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD ( talk) 06:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A News search found several results but mostly press releases and a wider search provided a few more results but basically the same. Not notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Alfred Webre (  | 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 was originally going to strip away the dubious sourcing, but it seems pointless. Really nothing in this traces back to any place but Alfred Webre, and I cannot find any evidence that he has any traction outside the world of omnium gatherum fringiness. Note that in reading the article I would not assume that anything it says is actually true. Mangoe ( talk) 15:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete This WP:FRINGEBLP needs to be sourced to reliable independent sources for us to establish notability. I don't see any that we can use. jps ( talk) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the previous closure was "no consensus", and the issues raised were not remedied since then. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no RSes. (PressTV completely fails to be one here.) No improvements in sourcing since previous AFD - David Gerard ( talk) 10:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The article is too fluffed and actually doesn't have that many good sources, a news search finds several results but nothing good and a wider search doesn't find anything better. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - pure puffery (but note that Webre will not be a happy chappie: "My view is that Wikipedia's action continues to be part of the CIA time travel controlled US Presidency's retaliation against me for having exposed Soetoro/Obama's participation in a 1980-83 secret CIA jumproom project.") Paul B ( talk) 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not just fringe, non-notable fringe. Atsme☯ ^Consult 00:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Show fails WP:GNG and the page creator states she works for the show. The article's current form is after a TON of promotional language and blatant advertising was removed. All that's left is a list of episode summaries and self-claimed info about the host. There are no secondary references at all and none independent of the subject itself. I couldn't find a thing through Google, though the general nature of the title makes this difficult. Shinyang-i ( talk) 08:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i ( talk) 08:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 07:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Article has no third-party sources to show notability. Random86 ( talk) 23:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete No sources to indicate notability, and I also couldn't find anything by googling it. Peachywink ( talk) 13:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Article makes no claims to notability, just a resume for the host and a list of episodes. - Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 12:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Delete both. Nakon 00:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

MicroEncryptyion (and the related MicroTokenization) are terms created to describe a proprietary encryption process, and aren't in standard usage. They appear to be a Neologism - the sources included only mention the terms in passing in relation to the company's products. There is no apparent in-depth independent coverage to establish the notability of the terms as standalone articles, and the best I'm finding online are press releases and brief mentions in regard to the company.

I am also nominating the following related page, as covered above:

Micro Tokenization (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bilby ( talk) 08:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete both per nom, the 1+1 references might support a CertainSafe page, but not these neologisms. – Be..anyone ( talk) 07:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this term doesn't seem to have notability to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Unreferenced article about an unnotable social network. Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete It never achieved notability, and now the website is defunct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete nn Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment There's some coverage in Indian media [1] [2] and in an ebook that looks self-published [3]. I don't think that's enough to be notable ( List of social networking websites is very long and limited only to notable sites so I don't think there's a sensible merge/redirect target). Colapeninsula ( talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Several searches gave that The Hindu link too and my last search found a blacklisted examiner.com link, not much for notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep: there is a clear consensus here, especially regarding Esquivalience's statistics. ( non-admin closure) EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 00:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Not a notable figure. Article not sourced with reliable citations. Google search revel no contribution to Indian Science and Technology, whatsoever Educationtemple ( talk) 14:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think an award presented by the president of India (the Dr. B. C. Roy Award) is significant enough to cover notability by itself, but he also has well-cited publications ( WP:PROF#C1) and is mentioned as a keynote speaker in this newspaper article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Given the number of colleges he's been principal or dean of. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Reasonably notable. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per WP:PROF#C1: Nearly 6000 citations, a h-index of 28, and a g-index of 73 shows that the subject has made significant impact to his field. Esquivalience ^t 23:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Two-line stub about a song, making no substantive claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, and citing no reliable source coverage. The mere fact that a song exists is not, in and of itself, enough to qualify it for a standalone Wikipedia article — that takes winning or being nominated for a major "Song of the Year" award, attaining noteworthy success on record charts, or other criteria that elevate the song well above the notability level of most other songs. Normal wikipractice is to redirect a non-notable song to the album from whence it came, but this isn't from an album — while redirecting this to the artist instead could be an option, I'm not sure how valuable that would be and I don't imagine it being all that likely a search term in its own right since anybody who actually was looking for it would have to already know who the artist was anyway. So all in all, my view is that we should just delete it. Bearcat ( talk) 14:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This was the best I could find in terms of coverage. It does not appear to be a notable song, no matter what the fox says.  Gongshow    talk 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete nn. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Washington D.C. Temple Orchestra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Sounds like the sort of thing that should be getting coverage. Unfortunately I could only find a few passing mentions such as this one: http://ww2.somdnews.com/stories/11252009/indytop102030_32181.shtml Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 21:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete nn without prejudice to recreation when notability increases. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Multiple searches (News and Books) found nothing aside from another passing mention here. You would think this would've gotten more attention but it is an all-volunteer religious group so that's not a guarantee. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The article appears to be an autobiography. It reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. The tone is promotional. It was previously BLPProdded. It was removed after adding some sources. The sources all seem to be to generic pages that do not mention him. I have not been able to find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources in the searches I have done. There is some coverage, but I do not believe it rises to the level of our notability standards. --  GB  fan 14:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep - a reasonably visible figure in Kenya. Unfortunately, online information about African things is limited. I will delete all unreferenced autobio and add a ref or two. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Blatant autobiography. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Vanity project created by the subject. Pax 02:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Autobiography of non-notable individual, fails WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that after the article was nominated for deletion, it was copy edited (by another user) to remove promotional elements from the article. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

An unreferenced, non notable Primary school in India. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Spam for non-notable primary school Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This is a K–12 school (teaching to Class XII). "English medium" refers to the language of instruction. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No references. Spam. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Terrible article, but as a secondary school kept per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jimfbleak, would you reconsider our deletion rationale/nomination based on the fact that this is a scondary school? Boleyn ( talk) 08:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I accept that it is a secondary school, but the article is very promotional in tone, eg the school does not spare any effort in rendering its services to all people, and unless it's cleaned up I'm content for the AFD to run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep for all the reasons documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Spammy yes, but that's the way English is always written and spoken in this part of the world. Needs cleaning up. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Yes, the article was spammy and I tried to improve it; removed promotional material, re-arranged the content, c/ed a bit, removed repetitive sentences. I was not able to find anything notable to add but I believe it's in a better state than before. —  Yash!  ^(Y) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Jimfbleak are your issues addressed appropriately? —  Yash!  ^(Y) 19:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Mine are, feel free to snow this shut if you'd like. I was not aware that this was a secondary school at the time of nomination as I am not familiar with the Indian educational system (the article didn't help too much either). Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• There are two standing delete votes so that shouldn't be done. It is just few hours away from closing anyway. —  Yash!  ^(Y) 21:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm reasonably happy with the amended version, so I have no objections if someone closes this as Keep Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep '- Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - Needs improving not deleting. – Davey2010 ^Talk 05:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 07:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - Needs a lot of work, but we've established that articles on secondary schools are considered notable, so long as the school exists. Jacona ( talk) 11:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, although there is not much verifiable hope of expansion. Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

ViewPoint 3D (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Non-notable software. Comment: Main contributor appears to have COI https://www.linkedin.com/pub/robin-colclough/38/b8/304 SageGreenRider ( talk) 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Although I am involved in the ViewPoint-3D project, that does not mean that the page is not useful to people searching for information on 3D content software, especially as it is the only software currently driving glasses-free 3D screen instantly, in real-time, and with live data and video feed. Clearly the software is notable, there is no "PowerPoint-3D" or "Photoshop-3D", there is no software that allows users to create data-rich 3D animations and presentations with live streaming HD and 4K video, or 3D that is updated by RSS or data feeds, none. If anyone disagrees please post the name of such software, because not Aurora, HTML5 (which is an API and not a product), nor Google Sketchup, or Maya, 3D Studio Max, 3D Afterworks, etc., are able to do what ViewPoint-3D is designed to to: instant HD 3D rendering with live-data updated content.

Why would anyone want to remove the page, its not offensive, the information is factual, the company even offers completely free software to educational users of any size as long as they are non-profit. Educators can use the software to develop interactive content with simple or very complex models, as large as software from companies such as Virtualia that costs thousands of dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• As I said at the beginning, the article should be deleted because the topic is not notable. I suggest you read WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY, and WP:NOT SageGreenRider ( talk) 11:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The article creator having a COI isn't necessarily grounds for the article's deletion (the article does appear to have a promotional tone, but that isn't grounds for deletion either). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Agreed. However, COI editors are generally poor judges of notability, and indeed I believe this is the case here, so I mentioned it. SageGreenRider ( talk) 11:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I added "Delete" and "Comment" to my initial line to clarify which part was the reason for deletion, and which part was an observation. hth SageGreenRider ( talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This article is unsourced, except to its own website; even the review cited is on its own website. The tone is heavily promotional, and without any external references it is nothing more than an advertisement. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 20:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment As a compromise, I'm happy for the article to be moved into draft space or the primary contributor's sandbox until such time (if any) that the company/product achieves notability per policy. At such time, submission via WP:AFC would help overcome the COI issue. hth SageGreenRider ( talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Actually, this should probably be Speedy Deleted per WP:G11 due to its obviously promotional slant. There is no reason why it can't be rebuilt with good sources if they exist. Anyone could put it in their own sandbox if they wanted. But, even with a change in tone and direct links solely to the publisher's page removed, it still would not meet notability guidelines. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 17:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'd like to try to defend the page, if that's okay, and I apologise up-front for any over enthusiasm. Can I ask, is it important that users of Wikipedia have a detailed source of reference of new technologies, even if they are not in widespread use? Because if it is then the page should not be deleted or relegated to the soap box, as it is the only computer graphics software that provides 3D content generation with live-data, where external data can change the 3D scene display in real-time without human re-editing. This is very useful for information display purposes, because users can make, amongst many things, a 3D weather fly-through that auto-updates as new RSS weather data arrives, or a flooding mimic diagram in 3D showing river levels as they rise and fall.

If anyone can provide any proof that there is another 3D software that can provide those facilities, without any scripting or programming, I'd understand there being such interest to delete the page. In addition, this is currently the only software that can render HD (up to 4K) video in real-time within the 3D scene. This is useful because it allows, for example, a youtuber to create a live video cast of themselves green-screened into an HD video and broadcast it immediately, or simply allow an information or digital signage screen to show content with current TV and live video camera feed.

On top of these unique features, the software, which is an ongoing development project, is currently, the only that can render directly live 3D animated content to glasses-free monitors, and on low-cost computers.

Current approaches use post processing of existing canned 3D content to produce 2D+Depth or Autostereoscopic interleaved output.

To the best of my knowledge, this software is unique, neither Intel, Microsoft or specialists like Scala or Broadcom have this capability, and some of the 3D glasses-free manufacturers have even threatened legal action as it threatens their control of the content market.

ViewPoint3D is a small project that has been reported by the industry press (links available on the viewpoint-3d.com site under News), however it doesn't have the economic power to compete in what has become a very controlled advertising market, even press releases don't get published without paying for month of advertising up-front, and if all channels are blocked the public won't be able to find out that 3D content doesn't have to cost them $30/second, which is the average rate.

Intel was recently fined heavily for illegal practices, including paying PC manufacturers not to use competitors chips Intel loses appeal of 14B USD European Union Fine, and so any new technology faces the risk of being squashed if not bought out.

People looking for 3D solutions have found us because of the Wiki page, some have been educational users, to which the software is available completely free, others commercial.

I can't say if this project will become globally notable, but deleting the page or dumping it in the sand box will only be useful to commercial companies selling more costly solutions; I mean its not like so many complex software projects are swapping wikipedia's database. Apologies if I've gone on a bit, but I believe in this project beyond pure commercial interest, and hope that the project is given a chance. Thanks RobinColclough ( talk) 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a vehicle to right the world's wrongs. We are tertiary followers. We write about what secondary sources (e.g. journalists in newspapers) have written about primary topics (e.g. events, ideas, companies, products,...). This debate is about a single issue: notability. It's a waste of everyone's time to for you to talk about other topics like the commercial practices of Intel et al. Sorry to be terse. On the positive side, I see you have added some independent sources in the past few days. That is helpful. I'm pinging people who looked at it before to look at it again: @ ScrapIronIV, @ Erpert, what do you think? Keep and multi-tag for COI, questionable notability, promotional language? Re-list for more inputs? I'm not sure. SageGreenRider ( talk) 12:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

As mentioned previously, this qualifies for a Speedy Delete per WP:G11 promotional content. The sooner it is gone, the better. We are not an advertising platform, nor are we a place to campaign for "new ideas" in the marketplace. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia... Would you find this sort of advertisement in Britannica? ScrapIronIV ( talk) 13:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I tend to agree but I'm torn between avoiding biting the newcomers with a speedy and a fear that @ RobinColclough, while acting in good faith, is not here to build an encyclopaedia. SageGreenRider ( talk) 13:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't believe that adhering to policy is a case of biting a newcomer, so long as appropriate explanations are made. Besides, they have been here since 2011. As our policy has been explained, it should not be an issue for an uninvolved editor. Unfortunately, it appears that the article creator is not an uninvolved Wikipedia editor, but an outsider promoting multiple properties for personal benefit. I appreciate your patience, but some things just need to be deleted. ScrapIronIV ( talk) 14:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. I was neutral at first, but thanks to the independent sources added, it sounds like this subject deserves a chance. And although it's true that the tone is still rather promotional, it isn't blatantly promotional (imo), so a speedy wouldn't apply (a rewrite would, however—and remember, AfD is not cleanup). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete References added after AfD are 2012 press-releases, which means that the software didn't generate enogh buzz yet, and it is not wikipedia's job to do it for them. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The software is still in development, with press releases in the pipeline. The release due next month will offer Google Sketchup users instant rendering of models that currently take hours to render. Its a lot of work, its taken 5-years so far, but if you really all think its just rubbish, just delete it and get it over with, as it does the project more harm than good sticking the "Questional content" banner on the top of it. RobinColclough ( talk) 08:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You will also find references and images produced by ViewPoint-3D on Autostereoscopy and 2D-plus-depth, so you can delete all that too if you wish. RobinColclough ( talk) 08:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Robin, no-one said it's "just rubbish." The criterion for inclusion is that multiple, independent reliable sources have written substantially on the topic. It so happens that this is not the case (yet) for your project. That's all. If you think your project has become notable in future, you can re-submit to Articles for Creation at such time. SageGreenRider ( talk) 12:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per WP:ADMASQ - nothing more than an advert in an article's clothing. ukexpat ( talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete The software simply isn't notable as Wikipedia defines that term, because it has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It is that simple, and all the lengthy protestations by the article's creator (who has a conflict of interest) completely fail to address the core policy issue and must therefore be disregarded. This is an encyclopedia consisting of neutral articles about notable topics. It is not an advertising platform for promoting new non-notable software. If the software receives the required significant coverage, the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 many editors have stated, this subject does not meet WP:GNG at this time. Nakon 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 13:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz ( talk) 14:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 07:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 07:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The subject is not mentioned significantly in any reliable sources. References provide in the article: 1 is a trivial link to his website, 2, 3 and 4 don't mention him at all, 5 is a list of 1,679 contributors, 6 isn't independent, 7 is a (seemingly) non notable animation contest, 8 is a web forum, 9 is non independent technical information, 10 is a wiki site, and 11-17 aren't independent. Delete per WP:BIO Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I was just about to nominate the page myself, in fact. Fails WP:GNG. A single passing mention in an independent source, the rest of the references either don't mention the subject at all or are low quality self-published sources (personal website on a free web host, Github page, forum post (!), etc). Google doesn't turn up anything useful either. Kolbasz ( talk) 13:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Pass WP:1E, specifies that one must be able to weigh if the subject can be specified on a larger article so that it can be merged, but there are cases that one can stand on 1 article such as this BLP if it is large or notable enough to expound on one article. (1) This BLP with its contribution during Haiyan as the source of the compiled OpenStreetMap data (the GPS map end-product of the 4 million data changes that 1670+ crisis mappers mapped for the Haiyan crisis) that has been used by multiple international organizations during its rescue operations and relief efforts on contribution is valid enough to be placed into a separate BLP article. This is so far the largest collaboration of mapping advocates to which the second is the earthquake in Haiti. However, if evaluators seem not to perceive it as big as it is, there is also another event (2) where the subject has been a part of the team that won the 1st Philippine animation festival which makes 2 separate notabilities that must be included to one article pertaining to the subject.
  (3) As the third notability is being the first person to lead a mapping expedition in the Palay-Palay Mataas na Gulod jungle in the Philippines to which the mapping trail produced and shared via the same GPS map is now being trekked by Filipino mountaineers.
  All in all this satisfies WP:BIO due to strike 3 of the subject's notability.
  The issue that may have so far is the limited amount of secondary sources where Wikipedia suggests in WP:GNG. Unfortunately most of the secondary sources do give it a passing mention (PBS, Guardian, UNOCHA PH Humanitarian Response, etc) as it only either links to the subject's mapping resource site or to his alias or a to an explanation of an end-product... but do take note that the end-product is still the GPS map provided by the subject and paper maps printed by other sources. The details are then explained by the OpenStreetMap Wiki on Haiyan which was used as one of the sources. However, let us not forget that even most of the sumptuous source are those of primary and tertiary sources, let us not forget WP:PSTS gives importance to these sources too with the use of common sense. In the end, it is still WP:RELIABLE as well as WP:ANYBIO
  Let us not allow the deprivation of a notable subject of an article get deleted due to literal implementation of WP:GNG without considering common sense.
  (4) Manila Times citation is reliable as it is a newspaper in the Philippines. First Philippine Animation Festival is the first ever animation festival held in 2002 with top universities in the Philippines participating. Ended 2006 as its major sponsor (Intel Philippines) has pulled out its operations in the country, then replaced by Animahenasyon on 2007. According to guidelines as of March 2010, BLP at least one reliable source that at least supports 1 statement in the article must suffice. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 13:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Philippine Adventurer ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete, subject fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. No non-primary or secondary reliable sources appear to give the subject significant coverage. Therefore, I have to say at this time it is too soon for the subject to have an article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I would have to say it was too late. (1) If this article was created around 2002, I'm pretty sure a lot of publications have covered the First Philippine Animation Festival however what I only have is the only remnant from Web Archive. (2) Manila Times is a significant coverage for his award as it is the first english publication in the Philippine since 1898. (3) and satisfies WP:ANYBIO for his award or else without the winning the first, someone else would have; but it is the subject that won it. (4) This also satisfies WP:CREATIVE #4. (5) As for his Typhoon Haiyan contribution, without his GPS end-product, what would have been used? It would have been an old GPS map without the information of blocked roads due to debris as mentioned by American Red Cross. Still satisfies WP:ANYBIO #2. Better keep it. Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. User-generated content from mainly primary sources.-- RioHondo ( talk) 01:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Sources don't give significant coverage. -- Ben Ben ( talk) 13:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Most of the sources are primary, or unreliable. And as for the sources that would be considered reliable, the subject of this article is not mentioned. the only one where is mentioned is in passing for winning a minor animation competition. The coverage there is simply his name mentioned in a list of the members of the winning team. -- Whpq ( talk) 04:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Using common sense, I highly doubt the likes of University of the Philippines, Philippine Women's University and De La Salle - College of Saint Benilde would join a minor animation competition. I also seriously doubt a major sponsor such as Intel Corporation would support a minor animation competition unless it is for charity (which obviously does not look like it). I also doubt NCCA would not revive the animation competition in 2007 after the major sponsor backed out due to moving out its operations in the Philippines if it is just a minor competition. I also doubt a reputable newspaper such as Manila Times and a few more publications would not cover it if it is a mere minor animation competition. Still satisfies WP:CREATIVE and multiple mentions of the subject's name/alias/mapping resource site in reliable sources as well as uncontested notabilities in primary sources makes it notable. A good keep. Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 07:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• You may doubt it as much as you like. That doesn't make the festival a major one. Regardless, it's a moot point as there is absolutely no significant coverage about Malicdem; you even said so yourself, "multiple mentions of the subject's name/alias/mapping resource site". Mentions are not significant coverage. -- Whpq ( talk) 10:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• But these mentions and coverage do cite the statements' context which gives its significance. WP:ANYBIO WP:BLPPROD. Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 12:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete and salt. Was part of a school team that won a local award ("Participants from all over Metro Manila", "representing the top schools, universities, and training institutions"). Not a major award, not notable or that. One of 1,679 voluntary contributors of the OpenStreetMap project. Not notable for that. Passing mentions of him in blogs. His own blog. A wiki. A Forum. Sources that don't even mention him. Not even close to enough for WP:GNG. Simply not notable. Salt as this was created just after the repeatedly rejected draft was deleted at MfD as a hopeless cause. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• "..representing the top schools, universities, and training institutions in the country...which to date has been the only animation competition of its kind held in the Philippines.." A major award. Keep would be good. WP:CREATIVE WP:ANYBIO Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 13:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the article doesn't really make claims of notability. It's basically "some guy who writes a blog, makes GPS tracks, does some art and edits OSM". Seems like a nice enough person, and doing some cool stuff, but not notable by Wikipedia standards. -- Slashme ( talk) 12:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete No actual claims of notability, just a guy who likes to do a few random things. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn.

Intelligence and personality (  | 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 seems to fail WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Nomination Withdrawn, my main concern was that this topic wouldn't have enough coverage to stand on it's own because Intelligence and Personality already exist, but other editors have shown that this is a suitability notable topic in current academic fields. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep I created this article by cutting and pasting content that someone recently added to g factor (psychometrics). While it is true that the article in its current form may fail various policies, there's a considerable research literature on the topic itself, so I think the article should be improved, not deleted.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep I fully agree that the article in its current condition looks like it has had too little attention from the point of view of making it an encyclopedia article, but this is a recognized encyclopedic topic, there is a lot of literature about this topic available in reliable sources for medical articles, and I would be happy to help improve the article. Indeed, I have already been keeping a source list in user space since 2010 to guide fellow Wikipedians to reliable sources on this article's topic and related topics. So the problem here is just the usual problem most of the 6,861,570 articles on Wikipedia have, that it still needs more work and article content improvement on the basis of reliable sources. I'm happy to help--I have many other articles with more page views to fix on related topics--so the rationale here, that the article currently reads like an essay, is not a sufficient rationale for deleting an article on a topic that can be shown from reliable sources to be a legitimate, encyclopedic topic for which there is an active program of primary research and secondary-source writing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The nomination doesn't give any particular details and does not explain why these supposed problems can't be corrected by ordinary editing. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORGDEPTH notability requirements. - Mr X 12:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, no indication of notability per WP:GNG. I had trouble finding their website, which turned out to be a single page reading "under construction" dated 2014, so can't even tell if they've launched the printed version yet. Couldn't find any other mention online in English, WP:RS or otherwise. Dai Pritchard ( talk) 13:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 07:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Multiple searches failed to find even one good source talking about this newspaper. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and even the website when I type states it is "under construction". Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Taunsa Sharif. ( non-admin closure) Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Pearl Grammar Public School, Taunsa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure if this school reaches wiki guidelines for schools or not-the only Google hits I could find were wiki mirrors. Wgolf ( talk) 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep if definite evidence can be found to prove it exists and is a secondary school. I must admit I'm having difficulty finding anything too. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Taunsa Sharif per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. – Davey2010 ^Talk 14:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Taunsa Sharif. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Taunsa Sharif; there doesn't seem to be anything online about it except wiki mirrors. - Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 12:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

No sources to verify anything mentioned in the article Monni ( talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete After thoroughly examining the article and searching for sources at Books (found one link) and News (found nothing), there's not much to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

José Manuel Rosano (  | 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 voice actor who has only one ref where he is briefly mentioned. The Spanish wiki has no refs at all and mentions him dying in 2007 (hence the living dead tag) Tried to find him on the IMDB and found 2 possible names but neither of the dates matched (one said died in 2002 and another one seemed off also) Wgolf ( talk) 02:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - There's not much information about him so it is likely he never had many roles and is not notable. By the way @ Wgolf:, which two names are you talking about at IMDb? I only found a Manuel Rosano from the '60s-'70s. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG and goes against WP:SONGS, which says most songs shouldn't have their own articles unless there is something significant to say about them that can fill up a good length article. This was a low-charting digital single released as a commercial for a mobile phone. Several articles about songs similar to this by Girls' Generation, f(x), and Super Junior have been previously deleted. I can't even see what it should be merged to, really, but am open to suggestions, of course. Shinyang-i ( talk) 03:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i ( talk) 03:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 07:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Song is not notable enough for a standalone article. Random86 ( talk) 23:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash!  ^(Y) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The fact that a one event internet video is considered notable for wikipedia standards is absurd to me. It might have coverage but WP:ONEEVENT isn't notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - From WP:1E "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Since this article is about the "event", (of sorts) this is perfectly fine. ―  Padenton| ✉   16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ―  Padenton| ✉   16:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Per WP:ONEEVENT, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person", which is exactly what this article does. Furthermore, the topic meets WP:N. Source examples: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Pass WP:1E Philippine Adventurer ( talk) 08:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are just too many sources spread over a long period of time to delete this. For example, this article from Newsweek that was posted last week. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash!  ^(Y) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

While it does meet GNG, it's for WP:ONEEVENT. How is this notable enough for it's own wikipedia page? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep ONEEVENT only applies to biographical articles, which this is not. This video has received coverage in a great deal of reliable sources over an extended period of time and so does appear to be notable per GNG, as the nominator notes. Everymorning talk 12:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The video has received worldwide coverage which passes GNG, ONEEVENT is irrelevant as that applies to BLPs which this is not, No valid reason for deletion. – Davey2010 ^Talk 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - From WP:1E "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Since this article is about the "event", (of sorts) this is perfectly fine. ―  Padenton| ✉   16:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep – As per WP:ONEEVENT, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person", which is how this article is formatted. Furthermore, the topic passes WP:N per sources in the article. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep This now seems to have 818 million views on YouTube and has been acclaimed on shows such as Rude Tube. Such items should be considered as equivalent to hit singles in popular music and this one seems up there with White Christmas. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Same problem as the previous nomination. There are just too many sources spread over a long period of time to delete this. For example, this article from Newsweek that was posted last week. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Easily meets WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) —  Yash!  ^(Y) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

How is this an article? The references are weak and most aren't even reliable. Past WP:ONEEVENT, I don't see why this needs it's own article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - From WP:1E "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Since this article is about the "event", (of sorts) this is perfectly fine.―  Padenton| ✉   16:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Padenton - The video has received worldwide coverage which passes GNG, ONEEVENT is irrelevant as that applies to BLPs which this is not (I'm seeing this as an event and not an actual BLP although I could be looking at this wrong). – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets WP:WEBCRIT which is the relevant guideline for web content. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 15:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Ad Hominem Enterprises (  | 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:NCORP and WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 10:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Certainly exists, but not seeing significant, independent, third-party coverage, etc. Neutrality ^talk 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not even a mention in the Hollywood Reporter. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/company/ad-hominem-enterprises BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 08:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I would've considered redirecting but this company is not mentioned at Alexander Payne's article but is at the other two. A News search found some results but nothing in-depth and Books found passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses ( T) @ 08:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete per TOOSOON - I'm also getting the feeling judging by the image this was an attempt to promote, Anyway according to IMDb they've only been in one film and even that's not out till gone 2016, So will have to say delete. – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 06:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ( T) @ 06:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I concur with the others. This reads like an autobiography, and the only source is the IMDb, which is not a reliable source. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. It does seem to be too soon for an article as of yet. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Absolutely non-notable with no significant sources to support. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Digital perpetuation (  | 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; non-notable neologism that the creator admitted to coining in a previously deleted version. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 07:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete, possibly Speedy Delete as A11. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Multiple searches found no significant evidence to suggest this word is widely used. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per above. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, pointless content fork of Digital preservation/ Digital continuity. – Be..anyone ( talk) 03:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

One contributor posted her opinion on the individual talk pages instead of here, this was "my" copy (now removed) for info:

I am trying to figure out why this would be marked for deletion. In all things new such as the speed for technology today we will see changes in traditional concepts and new ones evolving.

The internet-of-things will impact and change business models and one of the most important going forward will be protecting digital data assets. Traditional recordkeeping and library, archive methodologies for 'preservation' do not cater and will not be suitable for digital data asset management. Whilst the concept and term of digital perpetuation is only just evolving one could same the same for a lot of new terms. Why is it that you have such a problem with this word and its objective for differentiation and clarification.

Even if you delete this the term will not go away. It is already out there in publication on professional website libraries and will be available in the Queensland archives shortly. Therefore whilst it is not prominent now like all new evolutions so is there the introduction to new terms of reference it takes time and one would had thought that the wikipedia was a progressive environment and keen to be seen to staying in touch technology and the changing global environment.

Thank you for your time. Linda Shave

Please add answers here, six discussions instead of one make no sense. Back on topic, apparently your statement confirms WP:NEO per nom, adds WP:CRYSTAL as another reason for a deletion, and does not address WP:CFORK. Click on the pseudo-geek terms, they are harmless shortcuts for established rules here. – Be..anyone ( talk) 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Consensus is that bullpen catchers must pass GNG. Duplissea does not appear to do so and his minor league playing experience and college coaching also do not qualify him for notability. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 03:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore ( talk) 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor ( talk) 05:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails BASE/N and GNG Penale52 ( talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild ( talk) 07:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Band has zero notability for it's music and is only known for having former pornstar Sasha Grey as a member. Ridernyc ( talk) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep seems to be appropriately sourced. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 07:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―  Padenton| ✉   16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―  Padenton| ✉   16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, just - skimpy but seems reasonably sourced - David Gerard ( talk) 10:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7.

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

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

Despite being "hailed", Google finds no matches for his name, though "yoni massage" is found in abundance. I'm a bit skeptical (a) because female genital massage seems a strange thing to have "disciples" for and (b) because the article identifies the author as one of the two "disciples". —Largo Plazo ( talk) 02:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete (and so tagged) as obvious hoax (Yoni massage??? "...officially accepted 2 disciples, Kenny Chan and Benny Tan..."???). Sole edit by User:Bennytan1120. Pax 04:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete - either a hoax or so non-notable he's not mentioned anywhere. I was tempted to speedy this but will let this AFD run its course. No references and this only web link for him is an advertisement for one of his "disciples". Convinced this is just a promo for their, ahem, *cough* 'services'. Glen 05:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Island Heat (  | 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 event is not notable. The only coverage of the festival is limited and talks about it upcoming and there is no coverage of it actually happening. Rimmel. Edits Talk 01:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete - News searches found nothing so another search provided individual news sites such as this, this (currently mentioned in article) and this (all not significant or notable). This is a fairly small festival with none of the needed coverage to save it. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fictional character with no notability to be mentioned at all. Wgolf ( talk) 00:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, readers interested in this character will find almost the same information at The Edge Chronicles. This character does not warrent a standalone article and appears to be a case of WP:FAN. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Neither side develops consensus; NinjaRobotPirate has done some good research, though not enough found to convincingly create consensus. Mojo Hand ( talk) 01:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Paul Antony-Barber (  | 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 NACTOR + GNG – Davey2010 ^Talk 02:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep as borderline. While he has only had one major role in a notable TV production (Anubis), he has made numerous appearances in Television, and in a number of films. I think this might meet the 'prolific' requirement in WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Ross-c ( talk) 07:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, you have to check sources before making statements. It was nowhere near a "major role". As for NACTOR, please pay attention to the word "significant", which is none of him. Anyway, sources, please. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I think we need to keep this article, such as Ross-c said, he had a role in many movies, television series...--- Christaya1002 ( talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: as non-notable actor. This is an encyclopaedia not a blog, or a fansite or Variety. Quis separabit? 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia has clear notability guidelines. If you feel that those guidelines should be different from what they are, then that is a discussion for another place than an AfD discussion on an individual article. Ross-c ( talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually Wikipedia has quite debatable and contested standards regarding notability, hence the thousands of articles which have been in AFDs, CFDs, etc. "If you feel that those guidelines should be different from what they are, then that is a discussion for another place than an AfD discussion on an individual article." I don't know what this means. I simply pointed out that many "editors" misuse Wikipedia to create vanity, promotional, etc. articles or articles about personal friends, relatives, etc. and some treat Wikipedia as thought it were a fansite or blogsite, or for blatant attempts to promote things or people. That is without prejudice to this article as I am speaking in general. Quis separabit? 15:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ross: re:Wikipedia has clear notability guidelines. Please pay attention to the word "guidelines" and read about differences between guidelines and policies. And after you've done that, please explain how your opponent violated the guidelines or policies. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• delete No evidence that this actor did something more than 3-rd row roles. He is said to be "best known" for a role in a supporting cast, unknown how much support was there by him. No detailed discussion of the person. Wikipedia is not yellow pages for starving actors. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

On this Wikipedia, we have many articles about non-notable people (not only about actors). Wikipedia has articles of all kinds of people. Some people have article about them on Wikipedia though they do not deserve article. I think that actor who had role in numerous TV shows, movies ... deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. I can and give examples of the significant roles who this man had.--- Christaya1002 ( talk) 09:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Glynis Barber, his rather more notable ex-wife. He's a jobbing actor who's been in a few shows but isn't notable. His biggest part is a supporting role in House of Anubis (a satellite/cable kids show). He's not starring on prime-time network TV, he's not being nominated for Emmys or Baftas, he fails to meet any criterion of the relevant notability guideline. Is there material to write an article that's more than just a list of roles copied from IMDb? I can't see anything. Colapeninsula ( talk) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I dunno. His acting gets described as "played with scenery-chewing gusto" in this film review by The Hollywood Reporter. And The Spectator called his acting "a brilliant turn" in this article. So, he does get comments about his acting. Given that he's had a long-running role in a TV show, maybe all that adds up to notability per WP:NACTOR. Maybe. If someone else can locate further reviews of his work, I'd vote to keep. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep He's been in a lot of things, and as above, his acting seems to get positive reviews. Combined with 113 appearances on Anubis, I think he's just about notable enough. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep like others. He has a very long career. I think he is a character actor and also acts in theatre. This (a big paper I think) mentions him in a positive way. Elgatodegato ( talk) 02:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Is the newest and most complete model of carcinogenesis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

This article is mistitled -- probably the intent was to title it D-DINOMIT. I am not going to rename it, because even under that name it is not a proper Wikipedia article, being OR. The article was previously prodded, but the prod was removed, or rather mangled in a way that broke the template. Looie496 ( talk) 01:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete or Redirect (move to DINOMIT first) to University of California, San Francisco#School of Medicine: Non-notable medical concept (only some primary sourcing). Esquivalience ^t 02:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Adding {{ Find sources AFD}} for full consideration. But D-DINOMIT doesn't turn out anything. Just DINOMIT shows these. Tentative delete 野狼院ひさし u/ t/ c 05:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:OR PianoDan ( talk) 13:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • [4] (unsure reliability)
  • James M. Lowrance (9 February 2015). Treating Thyroid Disease Symptoms, Problems and Complications: A Compilation of Thyroid eBook Titles by Jim Lowrance. James M. Lowrance. pp. 27–. GGKEY:DPL0JSKU676. / James M. Lowrance (8 February 2015). Cancer: A Great Concern for Thyroid Patients: Malignancies Affecting the Metabolic Butterfly. James M. Lowrance. pp. 11–. GGKEY:QS24HB3A8EF. (both used in an identical paragraph; self-published; passing mention?)
• Delete a big pile of weird OR about curing cancer by feeding your genes with vitamin D. (Feeding your genes seems like the opposite of what you want in a cancer cure, but whatever.) Please don't redirect this to a legitimate medical institution. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:OR, plus there's no real claim of actual notability. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply